1951-05-15

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, I wish to draw your attention to a statement, as reported in Hansard, made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) last night. I had referred to a speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs made on May 2 in Renfrew, as to which the press report carried the statement that he had referred to "hoop-la diplomacy" and vaudeville performances; and I had indicated my belief that these words did not properly describe the type of diplomacy that was being discussed. Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as reported at page 3007 of Hansard, said this:
If the leader of the opposition had read my speech and not a newspaper account of the speech into the records of Hansard he might have'come to a different conclusion concerning it.
In view of. that statement, I sent to his office this morning for a text of the speech and was informed that there was no text. The newspaper report was therefore the only record available. But in reading the text of Hansard I also noticed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had said that he made a similar speech in Toronto on April 10; and I obtained the text of that speech. In his remarks last night-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if the debate which was closed last night should be revived at this time. If the leader of the opposition wants to make a brief statement, I think he should be allowed to do so; but I would not want him to extend his remarks so that the result would be another debate on this subject that has been closed.


George Alexander Drew: I have no intention of reopening the debate, Mr. Speaker. I am simply correcting the record. The Secretary of State for External Affairs last night, in reference to my statement that the term "hoop-la diplomacy" had been used, said:
I quoted from a paragraph by the columnist, Mr. Walter Lippmann, written some weeks before these events.
He then quoted that columnist. On reading the text of the similar speech to which he referred as having been substantially the same as the one in Renfrew, I find that while later in the speech he quoted from Mr. Lippmann, these are his own words:
In the circumstances of the present, it will, I think, have a better chance of reaching these goals if we abandon what has been called "hoop-la diplomacy," at Lake Success, at Ottawa, or, I hasten to add, at Tokyo.
He then went on to use further words, and in the latter part of the paragraph he said:
That is only one reason why I hope that in this country we will resolutely refuse to countenance the methods or the atmosphere of the circus or the vaudeville theatre in our conduct of popular and democratic government. Dignity is an important element of democracy.
I have read these quotations, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege in order to correct the record; and may I suggest that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be well advised to be more accurate in the comments in his speeches.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
may be permitted to add a word to what the hon. gentleman has said, inasmuch as he has mentioned my name and has made certain suggestions about the accuracy of what I said last night. The hon. gentleman is quoting this afternoon from a speech which I made in Toronto, not one which I made in Renfrew. Last night, Mr. Speaker, I believe that I said that what I had said in Renfrew was substantially the same as what I said in Toronto. But that does not give the hon. gentleman the right to quote textually from the speech I made in Toronto. If he had been at Renfrew, as I was, and if he had had the notes of my Renfrew speech, as I have, I am sure he would have come to the conclusion that what I said last night was strictly accurate.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I address a question to the Minister of National Defence? Has the minister's attention been drawn to a statement appearing in the press that large numbers of training planes from the United States of America are arriving at

Inquiries of the Ministry Trenton in accordance with a new loan agreement as yet unannounced? If so, will the minister make a statement as to the nature of that plan, if any?


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: I have not seen the press report, but in connection with the very largely expanded air training plan we shall be borrowing from the United States a number of Harvard aircraft to supplement those which we have either in active service or in store, which are being refitted. These later will be replaced by Harvards out of our own production, which will be well advanced toward the end of this year.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Is the North American F-6 trainer a Harvard?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, it is the Harvard with the latest modifications.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Have hearings by the board of transport commissioners in the general freight rates inquiry, which were supposed to open tomorrow, been postponed until the fall? If so, what is the reason for that delay?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question, but I received it only before coming into the house. I saw in the press report this morning that the board of transport commissioners had adjourned until September 10 its general investigation, into freight rates. I do not know what the reasons are, other than those which I saw reported. I presume that the railways and the other parties concerned were not prepared to submit evidence until such time as the legislation concerning equalization had been studied by the house.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister make further inquiries into that question and let us know, perhaps tomorrow? t At the same time I would also like to know whether there is to be a similar postponement of the application of the railways for a further increase in rates.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to make inquiries.
	*



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (SI. John's East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is it proposed to establish a floor price for salt codfish?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: This matter will be considered by my colleagues some time this week, and toward the end of the week I hope to make an announcement.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: In
the absence of the Minister of Resources and Development I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Why is the national film board cluttering up one end of the corridor on the fifth floor with their equipment? Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs having his picture taken, or what is the idea?


Mr. Cruicltshank:: They are taking mine.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not been up to the fifth floor to see what picture they are taking, or the equipment, with which I have little to do.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is all outside the minister's office.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I asked him a question some weeks ago about this matter and he said that it was then receiving consideration. Is it his intention at the present session to introduce any amendments either to the Canada Evidence Act or to the Criminal Code with respect to drunken driving and the use of scientific tests for the determination of drunkenness?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The amendments to the Criminal Code are under consideration by the cabinet, and it is expected that the result of their deliberations will shortly be laid before the house in the form of amendments, possibly covering the subject matter to which my hon. friend refers.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State? Has his attention been called to the request of the Ontario federation of printing trades unions that the employees of the federal printing bureau be accorded the right of collective bargaining? Will consideration be given to this request?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: I shall be glad to take the hon. member's question as notice and give him a reply as soon as possible.



YUKON ACT


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Resources and Development) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 188, to amend the Yukon Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 285, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution: That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the administration of Laurier house, in the city of Ottawa, and of an account to be set up in the consolidated revenue fund to be known as the Mackenzie King trust account to which shall be credited the sum of $225,000 given by the will of the late the Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, P.C., O.M., to the government of Canada, to be expended for the purposes of such administration.
Laurier House
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members, will recall the circumstances which are responsible for the legislation the government is proposing in this resolution, and in the accompanying resolution concerning the Kingsmere property which I propose to bring forward as soon as this one has been disposed of. I am sure, however, that all hon. members would wish to have the sequence of events set out in the permanent records of parliament. It is as follows:
On August 7 last I was given a copy of the last will and testament of my predecessor the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. On August 8, when Mr. King's will was made public, I gave a statement to the press which I should like to read. It is as follows:
I was advised yesterday by his executors of the disposition which Mr. Mackenzie King had made in his will of those properties which with forethought and generosity he determined many years before his death should become a trust for the people of Canada.
I at once recommended to my colleagues in the government that we should formally express our grateful acknowledgment of these bequests, and a minute of council has duly recorded our appreciation and our readiness to accept in the name of the Canadian people the necessary transfers and trust deeds. I am confident that all future governments will be as pleased as we are to see that Mr. King's wishes respecting the use of these public trusts are completely fulfilled.
The statement went on:
Their creation is a further evidence of Mr. King's high ideals of service to his country. The people of Canada will always be grateful for the endowment of the national capital by the perpetuation of the historic treasure which Laurier house has already come to be, by the generous provision towards the cost of its care and maintenance, and by the magnificent addition of the Kingsmere properties to the national domain.
The dedication by Mr. King of the residue of his estate for post-graduate scholarships will also commend itself to all who knew him, as a most fitting way to commemorate his deep interest in education, and the scholarly tradition which was so dear to him. Mr. King's will is a most notable example of the careful stewardship, the sense of history and the love of country, which distinguished his life and now enriches our Canadian heritage.
I should like also to read the text of the minute of council referred' to in the statement. It is as follows:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated August 7, 1950, from the Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, the Prime Minister, submitting that he has been advised by the executors that the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, in his last will and testament, bequeathed the property in the city of Ottawa known as Laurier house, together with a capital sum to assist in its upkeep, and his properties at Kingsmere, to become public trusts for the benefit of the people of Canada.
The Prime Minister recommends that the executors be advised of the grateful acknowledgment of these bequests by the government on behalf of the

Laurier House
people of Canada, and that the appropriate authorities be duly authorized to accept the necessary transfers and trust deeds from the executors.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
Some weeks later the executors initiated discussions with the government to arrange for the formal transfer of property, and we began at the same time to give consideration to the most appropriate means of administering the bequest of Laurier house and the property at Kingsmere. In view of the quite different purposes of the two bequests, the government felt it would be preferable to introduce separate measures covering each. The resolution under consideration relates to the administration of Laurier house.
It might be helpful in consideration of the resolution and of the bill founded upon it if I were to read the portions of Mr. King's will relating to Laurier house. They read as follows:
13.	For many years it has been my intention to bequeath Laurier house to the government and people of Canada, in the belief that as the years pass, the citizens of Canada will take an increasing interest and pride in the preservation of a house occupied through many years by two of Canada's prime ministers and reminiscent of an environment that was a part of their daily lives.
14.	It has been my hope that such a bequest might serve also to remind my fellow Canadians of the close association I enjoyed with Sir Wilfrid and Lady Laurier, and what I owed to their personal friendship; also to emphasize the unity of heart and mind among the Canadian people which Sir Wilfrid and I throughout our years of office, sought to preserve in the administration of Canada's national affairs.
15.	The maintenance of the residence as a place of historic interest and contemporary record of days that are gone would also serve the interests of the Canadian people in other ways. The residence might appropriately, I think, be given an immediate association with the Public Archives of Canada. Responsibility for its continued preservation, supervision and use might be placed upon the dominion archivist. Accommodation for scholars engaged on work of research in Ottawa is at present most inadequate both at the archives and at the library of parliament. In the years of my occupancy of Laurier house, I have done most of my work in the library and adjoining rooms on the top floor. I should particularly welcome the continued use of this portion of the house for purposes of study and research. A direct association with the archives would not only serve to emphasize the historic significance of the residence, but would help to ensure the interior being maintained such as it is, and would lead naturally to a more appropriate display of important documents and other objects of special interest. I should hope that the dining room and its furnishings, paintings, etc., would be retained much as they are.
16.	I therefore give, devise and bequeath to the government of Canada in trust for the people of Canada the house situated at 335 Laurier avenue east in the city of Ottawa, and all the contents of the said house except such papers, books, furnishings and other things for the disposal of which I have made provision otherwise in this my will.
17.	I also give, devise and bequeath to the government of Canada in trust for the people of Canada the sum of two hundred and twenty-five thousand

dollars ($225,000), the interest thereon to be used to assist in the maintenance and care of the said house. The said sum of two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($225,000) represents moneys which the Hon. Peter C. Larkin and other friends contributed, after the reconstruction and refurnishing of the residence was completed, to assist me in its upkeep throughout my life, and in meeting, to the end of my life, other personal and public needs, especially such needs as would arise in years of retirement.
I think it will be apparent that, as the resolution, itself puts it, it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the administration of Laurier house and of the trust fund bequeathed by Mr. King to assist in the maintenance and care of Laurier house.
I feel it would be preferable for me to reserve any further observations until the house has disposed of the resolution and there is available for the consideration of hon. members the bill setting out the provisions which we think would be appropriate to carry out the intentions of the will. I should then be quite happy to try to explain any of the provisions which might not be felt to be self-evident.
I should like to conclude by expressing the conviction that hon. members in all parts of the house will wish to associate themselves with the government in making appropriate provisions for the administration of this permanent memorial of two of our country's former prime ministers.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to make one or two comments. First of all, may I say that I think iall hon. members feel it is appropriate to take this action at the present time. I am sure there will be approval of the provision made by the Minister of Public Works, when the bill is passed, to see to it that this house, which has historic interest for the people of Canada, will be properly maintained and that any necessary improvements in the house and the area it occupies will be made. I pass Laurier house every day, and two or three weeks ago I was pleased to see a group of men working to improve the grounds. The new hedge, the tulips, the flowers and so on will make the house and grounds much more attractive. But the Minister of Public Works should see that the exterior of the house is gone over, because as it is now it does not look like a very appropriate memorial. A good deal of repair and renovation is needed on the outside.
I merely intended to say that we wish to associate ourselves with the remarks of the Prime Minister in regard to this matter, and

to express the hope that Laurier house will be used as a place of study and research by those who are interested in a most important period in Canada's history which coincided with the prime ministership, not only of Mr. Mackenzie King but of his great predecessor, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I am sure that hon. members are most happy to see progress made with this measure and steps being taken to create this memorial of the late prime minister.


Mr. Fulton:: Is it believed that the $225,000 to be credited to the trust fund will produce sufficient revenue to maintain the foundation within the limits in which it is now visualized, or is it expected that the expenses will be such in future years as to require aid from the general funds of the country?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think it would be prudent to say that it is expected that the revenue from the $225,000 credited to the consolidated revenue fund will cover everything in connection with this foundation. The purpose is to make it available for the use of students, under the care and administration of the dominion archivist. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has a copy of the bill, but it provides that the upkeep and heating of the property shall be the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works, and that the grounds shall be maintained by the federal district commission. There will be no separate account kept of the portion of the time of the employees of the federal district commission which is devoted to that particular work. There is no doubt that the testator felt that the creation of this fund of $225,000 in the consolidated revenue fund would be a substantial help toward the achievement of his purpose, which was to have Laurier house available for Canadian students as a place where they might engage in historical research work.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will there be persons in the
building who can advise students who go there for research work where they will find what they require?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is intended that the
house shall be in the keeping of the dominion archivist, who would naturally provide, as he does in other places where dominion archives are kept, assistants who can make the treasures there available of real use to those who have a serious interest in them.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 289, respecting Laurier house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
15. 1951	3031
Kingsmere Park KINGSMERE PARK



ADMINISTRATION OP BEQUEST TO GOVERNMENT OF CANADA UNDER THE WILL OF THE LATE MR. MACKENZIE KING

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the administration of Kingsmere park by the federal district commission and the management and control of the buildings in the park and the yards, orchards and appurtenances thereto by the Minister of Public Works in accordance with the will of the late the Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, P.C., O.M., with authority in the governor in council to set aside any part of the park as a country home for the holder of the office of prime minister, such park to be deemed included in the properties described in the schedule to the Prime Minister's Residence Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution I feel there is little I can add to what I have said already on the previous resolution respecting Laurier house, but I think it would be helpful in this case, as in the other, to place on record the relevant portions of Mr. Mackenzie King's will concerning Kingsmere park. They are as follows:
24.	The cherished objective of being able to
present my Kingsmere properties as a thank offering for what has come to me in the way of opportunities of public service, I believe I have been able to realize, and I hereby bequeath to the government of Canada as a public park in trust for the citizens of Canada, subject to certain reservations hereinafter referred to, my several properties at Kingsmere, in the province of Quebec, amounting in all to nearly five hundred acres, and the houses and other buildings erected thereon. The precise boundaries are set forth in the several deeds attached hereto.	'
25.	In making this bequest, I express the wish that the lands at Kingsmere may be maintained as nearly as possible in their present state: that they will be developed as parkland, and that they will form a wild life sanctuary and will continue to have the character of a natural forest reserve.
26.	Believing that my successors in the office of prime minister may find, as I have found, a renewal of strength in this quiet place, as well as exceptional opportunities for conference on national and international affairs, I hope that the government of Canada will consider the possibility of setting aside a part of the Kingsmere property as a country home for the holder of the office of Prime Minister of Canada.
27.	Inasmuch as relatives and friends of mine have spent their summers, or part of them, at Kingsmere as my guests or tenants. I hope they may continue to enjoy the summer homes to which they have become accustomed; and that other appropriate use may be made of them. I would therefore ask that the government should authorize my trustees to provide that, for a period of three years after my death, the cottages and such of their contents as are mine and are not otherwise disposed of in accordance with this my will shall be available, rent free, for use by my sister and the members of her family, by the members of my late brother's family, and by such other persons as may be designated by my trustees.
28.	My trustees are hereby authorized to dispose of all my possessions in the cottages and other

Kingsmere Park
buildings or on the property as they believe will be most in accord with my own wishes; and to meet such expenses as may be necessarily incurred for the maintenance of these cottages for a period of three years.
X am sure hon. members will agree that the federal district commission, which has the responsibility of the development of the national capital and of the Gatineau park, is the appropriate body to be entrusted with the administration of the properties which will constitute Kingsmere park and ultimately form an integral part of a parkway system, the whole of which will help to preserve the memory of Mr. Mackenzie King and of his interest in the creation of this parkway system around the national capital.
I do not feel there is anything I need add in moving the resolution, as it will obviously be more convenient for hon. members to discuss what is proposed when they have the text of the bill before them.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I said something about Laurier house, and I am sure it is with much pleasure that we see that property set aside for the purposes indicated. Nevertheless I think this is a more important bequest to the country in many respects than Laurier house. It has not the same historic significance, but it is a valuable addition to the national capital project. I think those of us who are familiar with the beauty of the area on the Quebec side of the Ottawa river thus bequeathed to this country will appreciate to the fullest extent what this will mean in the days to come to the people of Ottawa and the people of Canada. The people of Canada should be fully informed of the value of this bequest, one of our beauty spots, to the nation. I suppose that one day, which probably none of us here will see, Canada will possess the most beautifully situated and developed capital in the whole world. There is no lovelier site, and this bequest is certainly an important addition to the federal district. I hope that the people of Canada will appreciate what it means.
May I also say that the provision in the will requesting the setting aside of a piece of this property for a country home for present and future prime ministers is a suggestion that is well worth while. Before the resolution passes through the committee stage, may I say again that this is probably one of the most important bequests that has been made to our country. I am quite sure that in the days to come many thousands of Canadians, indeed through the years many

millions, will learn to love the beautiful area which includes the Kingsmere property in the delightful Gatineau district.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 290, respecting Kingsmere park.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947, to provide authority to make accountable advances to provincial workmen's compensation boards on account of expenses incurred by such boards in the investigation and adjudication of claims undertaken by arrangement with the federal government; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this resolution
announces the intention to make a few amendments to the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947. That act made provision for the payment of compensation to employees of the crown in right of Canada where the employee is caused personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, or is disabled by reason of an industrial disease due to the nature of his employment. In case of death of the employee resulting from such an accident or industrial disease, his dependents are entitled to compensation under the act. The provisions of the act also apply to employees of corporations, commissions, boards or agencies established to perform a function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada, who are brought within the scope of the act by order of the governor in council.
The general principle of the act is that the compensation benefits payable thereunder shall be the same as is provided in the case of employees employed in private industry, or dependents of a deceased employee under the law of the province in which the accident occurs or the industrial disease is contracted. The application of the present act to employees in the Northwest Territories required the enactment of special provisions therein, in view no doubt of the lack at that time of adequate local workmen's compensation legislation in the general area.

The present act provides in effect that compensation shall be payable to employees of the crown ordinarily resident in the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, and to dependents of deceased employees who were so resident, in accordance with the compensation legislation in force in the Yukon Territory. This has had the effect of providing uniform treatment and benefits for employees of the crown resident in these unorganized areas. However, it has been strongly represented by departments of government who have resident employees in the Northwest Territories that these provisions of the act do not provide adequate benefits for employees in the area under present-day conditions, and provide less favourable treatment for employees in both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon than is provided under the act for employees of the crown elsewhere in Canada.
The provinces are able to provide and administer more comprehensive compensation benefits under their workmen's compensation legislation on a self-sustaining basis than it has been found feasible to provide in the Yukon and Northwest Territories under the workmen's compensation legislation in force in these areas. Consequently the discrepancy between the benefits payable under the act to employees of the crown ordinarily resident in the territories and the benefits payable to employees of the crown under the act elsewhere in Canada is serious and substantial.
Following a review of the situation, in the light of the representations which have been made the government has considered it advisable to introduce amendments to the act which will bring the provisions for compensation benefits for employees resident in the Yukon and Northwest Territories in line with benefits payable under the act to employees of the crown resident elsewhere in Canada. The major amendments here proposed give effect to the foregoing by providing that hereafter employees of the crown ordinarily resident in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon Territory, and dependents of deceased employees who were so resident, shall be entitled to compensation under the act in accordance with the provisions of the laws of the province of Alberta applicable to employees in private industry.
The provisions of the Alberta legislation have been designated as applicable for the purposes of the act because of the proximity of this province to the territories, and the fact that to an increasing extent the greater part of the movement of personnel and the normal lines of travel and communication in and out of the greater part of these territories are by way of Alberta. Moreover, in the
Government Employees Compensation Act administration of the act for the benefit of employees in the territories it is felt that claims arising in the territories can be dealt with and adjudicated with a minimum of delay by the application of the Alberta compensation provisions. The provisions for compensation under the Alberta legislation are considered to be appropriate for application to employees in the territories. The provisions will continue to ensure uniformity of treatment for employees resident in either the Yukon or Northwest Territories.
It may be recalled that up until 1950 the claims of employees of the crown employed in Prince Edward Island were dealt with under the provisions of the neighbouring province of New Brunswick, because of the absence, prior to that time, of comprehensive provincial workmen's compensation legislation in Prince Edward Island. This is a similar administrative provision which is intended to be adopted in this case.
The other proposed amendments to the act are of a minor and technical nature.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the minister for this progressive legislation. We have known workers who were hard pressed while living under compensation; and when workers and their dependents are protected by the Department of Labour, I think we should say, thank you.


Mr. J. A. Simmons (Yukon-Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of this resolution, which precedes legislation amending the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947.
First may I commend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) for bringing in this legislation, which no doubt will correct an iniquitous situation affecting government employees in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory. At the present time if an employee of the federal government meets with an accident while in the performance of his duty in any province, he is generally entitled to such compensations as would be paid under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act of the province in which the accident occurred, or the province in which he normally resides. However, where an employee ordinarily resident in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory meets with an accident, he receives such compensation as is provided for by the workmen's compensation ordinance of the Yukon Territory.
Whatever the reason or excuse, there is no doubt that the provisions of the workmen's compensation ordinance of the Yukon Territory are much less generous than similar legislation in the provinces adjacent to the
3034	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory. Under the terms of the ordinance there is no provision for the payment of any pension whatever to the dependents of a workman who is fatally injured, or to a workman who may be permanently injured; and that is a sad state of affairs. The ordinance does provide that in the event of the death of a workman resulting from injury, his dependents shall be entitled to receive the sum of $5,000, with $750 to each dependent child of the deceased under the age of sixteen, the total not to exceed the sum of $8,600. When a workman receives an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment as a result of which he is totally and permanently disabled, he shall be entitled to receive as compensation the sum of $6,000. Certain stated lesser amounts are payable in the case of other injuries. For instance, the loss of a hand or foot is valued at $3,000, while an arm or leg is valued at $4,000. There is no workmen's compensation board to administer this ordinance, and to which the injured workman or his dependents may apply for compensation. Every employer is required to enter into and maintain a contract of insurance providing for the payment of compensation to his employees and their dependents, and they must take proceedings for recovery. The ordinance makes no provision for the medical or surgical care of the injured workman, nor does it apply where less than five workmen are employed in the same general employment.
It is grossly unfair that federal employees and others whose duties take them to the more northern (parts of Canada, where by the very nature of things, owing to the remoteness and lack of transportation facilities, the hazards of employment are greater than in the more settled parts of our country, should be further penalized by having to come under the provisions of such deplorable legislation as the Yukon workmen's compensation ordinance if they are so unfortunate as to meet with an accident. Let us take an actual case.
Dr. Michael Feniak was resident geologist at Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories for the geological survey of Canada, a man of high professional qualifications, active in community life, and altogether an admirable Canadian of whom we might all be proud. In July, 1949, he was drowned while employed on hazardous governmental work. He was a young man, with a wife and two small children, one of whom was born only a few days prior to his fatal accident. He had not been long enough in the government service to build up much credit under the superannuation act. All his widow and children were entitled to was $5,000 for the widow and


$750 for each of the children, or a total of $6,500, under the terms of the workmen's compensation ordinance of the Yukon Territory. This was the pittance this family received as compensation for the loss of a husband and father. However, I am pleased to say that the federal government gave a special gratuity of $2,000 on compassionate grounds in 1950, authorized by this parliament. This very fact is an admission that the present legislation covering compensation for government employees in northern Canada is inadequate, and I welcome this amending legislation as a means of alleviating this deplorable condition.
During the course of my remarks I have mentioned some of the inadequacies of the present legislation covering workmen's compensation in the Yukon Territory. I am told it is not much better in the Northwest Territories, and I would bring the situation to the attention of the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), who is responsible for the administration of the northern territories. I am aware of the difficulties presented by the sparse population and the relatively small number of employers and employees as compared with some of the provinces. These same difficulties make it expensive for insurance companies to operate in the territories; therefore the rates for adequate coverage are high. These difficulties should be and can be surmounted.
I am pleased to learn that the Department of Resources and Development has a committee of officers studying the problems of workmen's compensation in the Northwest Territories. The committee has held several meetings already, and has obtained information from provincial compensation authorities and from insurance companies writing compensation business. It has also ascertained the opinions of employers of labour in the provinces and the territories in the mining, lumbering, fishing and transportation industries.
Though the terms of the workmen's compensation ordinance of the Northwest Territories are much more favourable than those of the Yukon Territory, the present system is inadequate. The Northwest Territories ordinance provides for compensation by insurance, with a limit of $15,000 for any person and $105,000 for any accident. These limits in the past have proved insufficient, and I believe the problem under consideration is how to render the system adequate. This resolution provides only for compensation for government employees killed or injured in the course of duty in the Northwest Territories or Yukon; it does not provide compensation for non-government workmen in those territories on a scale comparable to

that provided in. the other provinces of Canada. With the exception of the province of Prince Edward Island, all the other original provinces have a reasonably comparable system of compensation for workmen killed or injured in the course of their employment.
A general summary shows that on an average, based on a maximum salary of $2,500 per annum, for compensation purposes, workmen during their period of incapacity receive 66f per cent of their average earning up to the maximum allowable of $2,500. Funeral expenses varying from $125 to $175 are allowed. Widows receive from $40 to $50 per month, with from $10 to $15 per month for each child, depending upon the province.
If the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory are to expand, as we all expect they will, the fact that adequate workmen's compensation is not available will definitely tend to discourage capable workmen, who are conscious of their obligations to their wives and families, from seeking employment in those territories; and these are of the type the territories should encourage to settle there.
I believe the solution is to establish in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory a full-scale workmen's compensation scheme in accordance with the provision contained in workmen's compensation acts in the other provinces of Canada, preferably British Columbia. I prefer British Columbia for the reason that the mining industry of the north is largely an extension of that in British Columbia. Therefore legislation providing compensation for employees engaged in placer mining, deep lode mining or smelter or mill occupations should be the same in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory as in British Columbia. I refer particularly to silicosis and lead poisoning as occupational diseases which are provided for under the British Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act. I see no reason why the good people of our north country should not be entitled to receive the same benefits as those received by people residing in the several provinces. The legislation now in force in the territories is nothing more than rank discrimination and surely should not be tolerated any longer.
I am strongly of the opinion that, owing to the similarity of the conditions and types of industry in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, a workmen's compensation scheme should apply with equal benefits in both areas.
The north, which is the last reservoir of mineral resources in North America-it has
15, 1351	3035
Government Employees Compensation Act hardly been scratched, or even thoroughly prospected-is now coming into its own with the opening of new mines and the expansion of older ones. All this will lead to an increase in population which will make it easier to put into operation more generous legislation affecting workmen's compensation, with the ultimate object of having properly organized workmen's compensation boards in operation. This will have to be done if we are going to get people to go into the north to develop its resources; and now is the time to start doing something about it.
I am therefore glad to support this resolution, which is an honest endeavour to correct this injustice in so far as it relates to government employees; and I hope that similar legislation will be enacted at an early day to provide proper benefits for non-government workmen on a scale comparable to those provided in the provinces of Canada, preferably British Columbia.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the minister a few questions. Is it clear that the effect of this resolution will extend only to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories? From what the minister said, as well as I could hear him, I take it that there is nothing in the bill now proposed that alters the provisions of the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947, with respect to government employees in the provinces. Is that correct?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. This applies only to government employees, or employees of commissions or boards responsible to the government, resident in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For example, the minister's reference to what the situation used to be in Prince Edward Island was merely given as an example?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That was just an example of the compensation board of a neighbouring province being used in an area that had not yet established its own act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right.
Now may I say that I listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon, member for Yukon-Mackenzie River, and I noted that he expressed approval of the measure forecast by this resolution. But he also indicated that there were further steps that might yet be taken. In particular, he expressed the hope that the day might come when there would be for all workmen in the Yukon and Northwest Territories workmen's compensation legislation similar to that which obtains
3036	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act in the provinces. May I ask the minister to indicate whether consideration! has been given to that aspect of the matter?
Further I should like to ask, what is the situation with regard to labour legislation generally? Does the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act apply in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories? If it does, does it apply only to the categories of employees covered in other parts of Canada, or does it apply to all employees in that area? If it does not apply to all employees in that area, is there any legislation in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories corresponding to what we call labour codes in the dominion and in the provinces? My reason for asking that type of question is, I think, clear. It leads into this other question as to who should bear the responsibility for workmen's compensation legislation for all employees, including non-government employees, in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should like to point out, as I perhaps should have done in my statement, that the Department of Labour in this instance is acting for other departments, particularly the departments of resources and development and of transport. As my hon. friend knows, under the Department of Resources and Development there is a system of local government, increasing in responsibility. My 'colleague the minister of that department introduced certain measures to that end. The hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River expressed the hope that these amendments might lead to a uniform compensation act being worked out for nonfederal government employees in the two areas. I know full well that that is also the hope of the Minister of Resources and Development. It will, of course, be appreciated that the councils which act as the local governing bodies in those two areas would need to consult with employers in industry within the areas and with the people themselves in order to bring that about.
Now, as to the more detailed question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to other labour legislation, perhaps he would allow his question to stand on the record, and we shall see to it that it is replied to in detail when we come to the bill itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Following that may I ask one or two other questions? I note that the government decided to base the compensation rates and the other regulations to apply in the Yukon and Northwest Territories on the situation in Alberta for the reason that the minister gave, namely, the proximity of the areas concerned to the province of


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall try to answer my hon. friend's questions. I shall answer the last one first. My understanding of it is that they would follow whatever changes were made in the province of Alberta; the two areas would follow the same rates.
On the other, I should be glad to give the hon. member a comparative statement later on of rates in all the provinces of Canada. Perhaps it would be of interest to him at this juncture, however, if I referred to what the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River outlined as to the present situation in Alberta and the present situation in the Yukon with regard to permanent disability. On the one hand, in Alberta at the present time the weekly payment for permanent total disability during a man's lifetime is equal to two-thirds of his average weekly earnings up to $2,500 ceiling per year; a minimum payment of $15 a week, or full earnings if less than $15 a week. In the Yukon at the present time for total disability a lump sum of $6,000 is paid. At this point I should like to refer to the question whether it should be tied to the Alberta act or to the act of some other province-British Columbia or Saskatchewan-was very carefully considered by the interdepartmental committee that studied all the factors affecting it. Perhaps I could do no better than to read a short paragraph on that in the submission

made to that committee by the Department of Resources and Development. It reads as follows:
Transportation routes from the Keewatin district of the Northwest Territories lead mainly into Manitoba. Transportation routes from the Mackenzie district lead almost entirely into Alberta. Freight traffic of the Yukon Territory tends to come largely from the province of British Columbia. In the latter case, however, the construction of the Alaska highway and the trend of air transportation routes has resulted in an increased traffic through Edmonton to the north. I believe the future will increase this traffic to the extent that the great majority of the passenger traffic to the Yukon will pass through Alberta.
The number of federal employees in that portion of the Northwest Territories serviced through Manitoba is negligible as compared with the number of federal employees in the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. The selection therefore of the Workmen's Compensation Act of the province of Alberta will give the desired uniformity of legislation and will also meet the situation as it actually exists and will continue.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: May I point out that whoever got out that report did not keep in mind all the factors with respect to transportation facilities. The Yukon Territory particularly is served from Vancouver. Also from Edmonton the .point of juncture is at Fort St. John in the Peace river country, so that there is extensive traffic from the city of Vancouver to the Yukon, passing through British Columbia throughout.
Back of this is a very dangerous precedent, it seems to me, to tie in that great north country with Alberta. The natural outlet for that country is British Columbia, and the ports of British Columbia. We in British Columbia devised a workmen's compensation act, which is one of the finest that exist today in Canada or out of Canada. We have met and dealt with the problem of the hard rock miner, the man who suffers from silicosis. We have dealt with the problem of lead poisoning. All these mines in the Yukon and in the Mackenzie will be deep lode mines as time goes on, and also of coufse there will be placer mining. But the industrial problem there will be identical with that in British Columbia. It would seem to me that it would be much more in order to tie it in with British Columbia than to tie it in with the agrarian province of Alberta. I see a tendency these days to tie a great deal in with Alberta. There is a movement now to annex a portion of British Columbia. I refer to the Peace river block area. These are all straws in the wind. I hope the minister will regard the thing very broadly before he saddles the whole administration of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories onto the province of Alberta.
May I point out also that there are hard rock deep mines in the province of Manitoba.
Government Employees Compensation Act They are at Flin Flon and elsewhere. I am sure that there is a good workmen's compensation aot in effect in the province of Manitoba. I think the whole thing leads to this. The time is not far off when you will be obliged to have a new province in the north, and this matter of industrial relations and workmen's compensation will be merely one of the matters that will have to be tackled by that new province. In the meantime I do not think any preference should be shown, and no measures should be taken to tie up that country to any particular provincial pattern.


Mr. Johnston:: I want to say a word on this. I think that the action taken and the principle of the amendment to the act as proposed by this resolution are sound. I should like to see the people of the Yukon have their own labour legislation, but I think it would be impracticable at the present time. I was wondering about the difference in rates between the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. The minister has explained that in part, but perhaps he would put on Hansard the table from which he just quoted so that we would be able to see more in detail the difference between the rates of compensation in British Columbia and Alberta.
I was interested in hearing what the hon. member who has just taken his seat had to say, because we have been aware of the fact for some time that the northern part of British Columbia has made representation to the provincial government to have that part of British Columbia annexed to Alberta, and I do not blame them for that. I think it is a very wise suggestion, in view of the fact that we have a splendid government and splendid labour legislation in Alberta. But I think it goes even beyond that, that even part of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon want to be annexed to Alberta. I think that shows their good judgment, too. I am quite familiar with the labour legislation in Alberta, but I am not as familiar with that in British Columbia. We have never had serious objections to the labour legislation in Alberta, particularly as it applies to compensation.
The hon. member referred to silicosis. We have had quite a problem in our province in that connection. Whether the payment in British Columbia would be better, or the legislation in that regard would be better than that in Alberta, I cannot say. However, we will find that out if the minister places on Hansard the table to which he referred a moment ago.
Generally speaking I think the legislation proposed by the resolution is commendable. The minister has something on his side when
3038	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act he proposes to use the province nearest to the neighbourhood in question. He pointed out that that was done in other cases. From the reports we have had from some people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, as well as northern British Columbia, I think they would be only too glad to know that the minister has chosen Alberta as the administrative point in respect of labour legislation.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman, so far as the Mackenzie river valley is concerned, I would point out that it is tributary to the city of Edmonton. I am glad to hear an hon. member supporting the Social Credit party saying that they are willing and anxious to take over the Peace river area in British Columbia.


Charles Edward Johnston: No; they want to come in.


George Matheson Murray: No doubt the people up there will be glad to hear that they are being rescued in this way. I still think however that the headquarters for the industrial government of that part of the world should not be established until we discuss thoroughly the position of British Columbia, and the cities of British Columbia in relation thereto.


Mr. Herridge:: I support the legislation, but I rise also to support what has been said by the hon. member for Cariboo and the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie river in suggesting that the workmen's compensation board of British Columbia should be used by this government in having assessments made on industrial diseases and in connection with accidents occurring to those working in the Yukon and in the Mackenzie district.
Mining conditions as I understand them, and as they are explained by the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River, are similar to those occurring in the greater portion of British Columbia. That is, they are hard-rock mining operations. I believe it is safe to say that the workmen's compensation board in British Columbia has done more research and investigation on the question of silicosis than any other compensation board in Canada. I believe that can be said without question; it is a generally recognized fact.
Owing to the fact that there is a large smelter at Trail, and that other smaller and similar operations are being carried on, a great deal of work has been done in connection with lead poisoning and other industrial diseases. Not only has a large amount of work been done by scientists, doctors and others trained to do research work in these matters, but the whole question has been followed closely by the labour unions and the workers involved. They have co-operated


with management in making proposals to the compensation board to assist in the investigations made by that board respecting the complex questions surrounding a proper assessment in connection with silicosis and industrial diseases, and in stipulating what are to be classified as industrial diseases.
I believe the minister should take note of what has been said to the effect -that it would be fairer to the mining areas of the Yukon and in the Mackenzie district to have their compensation assessed by -the workmen's compensation board in British Columbia, which has had so much experience in assessing the type of disabilities which occur from that kind of occupation, and which also has done a great deal of work in classifying various types of accidents.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Let me assure the committee there is no intention on my part either to begin or to renew any controversy in respect of the extension of provincial sovereignty in the west. The reason I took pains to mention Prince Edward Island in relation to New Brunswick was to assure hon. members that there would not be any possibility of an extension of sovereignty coming about, due to this mild little amendment of mine. Because I can assure the committee that the fact that "The Island" made use of the New Brunswick compensation act did not extend the influence of that province over Prince Edward Island one iota.
But let me say this, that when the commissioner and councils which govern these areas-under the federal government-come to the point where they can work out a scheme of their own on workmen's compensation for that area, they will at that time absorb within that scheme workmen's compensation for the federal employees who happen to be in that area.
So I think we are crossing a bridge some time before we have come to it. This amendment is merely to take care of federal government employees in the area. However, I shall be glad to bring to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Resources and Development the comments which have been made here this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister indicated that at a future stage he would give information concerning rates across the country. By any chance has he that information with him now in tabular form? If so it would be useful to us in debate at a later stage if it could be placed on Hansard today.
While I am on my feet I would point out that the minister's observation, to the effect that the council of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories may in due course take over

Indian Act
directed towards the Indian bill as such, there will be opportunity for extended debate on Indian administration later in the session.


George Alexander Drew: I am not particularly concerned about the time at which the statement may be made, but I should like to make a short statement which is directly applicable to the bill. I accept the suggestion of the minister in the spirit in which it is made; and so far as any extended remarks are concerned, I shall reserve them for the estimates.
I wish to make a brief statement in relation to the bill because I believe this is the time to draw attention again to our policy in an effort to find a real solution for this whole question. I can only repeat what I have said before. As I indicated earlier in the session, and in previous sessions as well, I have a strong conviction that there is great inconsistency in asserting our belief that full equality should be established for the peoples of other lands, asserting that as though we thought that principle could be carried into practice in other lands, when in this democracy of ours we have failed to solve this one problem which has to do with the measure of equality that is to be extended to a very large number of our own citizens.
I would point out that the number affected by this bill is not insignificant. It happens that the number is almost the same as the total population of Iceland, an independent nation with a long and proud history. I employ that comparison only by way of illustration to point out that we are dealing with a large number of human beings who have all the qualifications to become equal citizens in every respect of this country of ours.
I realize that some opinions are held among the Indian tribes that they do not wish the treaty relationships to be unduly disturbed. They regard these as sacred contractual rights which they wish preserved, along with all the privileges and protections of certain kinds which they receive under the treaty contracts. On the other hand, whatever views may be expressed, either by members of the Indian tribes affected or by other Canadians, we cannot be satisfied until we have established a basis of absolute equality for all Canadians in this country.
Once again I simply want to place on record, while the bill is under consideration, the opinion that no hon. member should have in his mind the thought that we have done more than improve an unsatisfactory situation. Undoubtedly the amendments that have been placed before the house, and that have been improved by reference to the committee

which has spent some time on the bill, will be to the advantage of the Indian population of Canada affected by this measure.
I wish to express my own belief that the minister has approached this subject with a real desire to improve the lot of the Indian members of the Canadian population. No hon. member of this house and no Canadian with the full rights of citizenship can ever be satisfied that this bill will achieve what all of us should desire. While we adopt the bill, to whatever extent it is adopted, as a measure that will improve the position of those affected by it, I wish to leave the thought that all of us should be directing our attention to the way in which we can bring the Indian population fully into the regular citizenship of Canada, protecting them in so far as their basic rights are concerned but at the same time giving them the opportunities of education and of ordinary citizenship which I am convinced they are capable of accepting and of carrying forward with success in the years ahead.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the clause is carried I should like to say a word or two, not by way of any extended remarks but first to support to the full the remarks just made by my leader on the attitude which should inspire us in our relationship with the Indians and in our efforts to bring them into full equality and citizenship. Judging by the way in which those remarks were received in the house they were acceptable to and can be taken as reflecting the attitude of all members in this chamber.
While it is undeniable that the Indian affairs committee did a tremendous amount of work in not a very long time, and the substantial number of amendments made in that committee have, as the minister himself has said, improved the bill either in detail or in some cases in general principle and application, nevertheless I want to record at this stage my regret that the committee did not see fit to call on Indian representatives to appear before it to give the members of the committee, who are members of the house, an opportunity to hear at first hand the views of representative Indians with respect to Bill No. 79.
It is true that there were extended hearings two years ago and three years ago by a committee which considered the subject of Indian affairs generally. It is also true and only fair to say that that committee heard many representatives of the Indians themselves who had a full opportunity to present their views and to submit briefs which were incorporated in the proceedings of the committee. But that committee, Mr. Chairman, was not dealing

this field, leads me to observe that the council is likely to be guided by whatever has been established as federal government practice. If the federal government has adopted a practice which calls for payment at the rate 

 66S Per cent rather than 75 per cent, as I believe is the case in some other provinces, the council would likely follow suit.
I still think it would have been better to have picked some other province, for that reason. However we can discuss that later. Has the minister a table at hand now which could be placed on Hansard at this time, so that we would have the information before we come to second reading of the bill?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No; I have just a comparative statement of the classifications of rates of compensation for accidents as between Alberta and the Yukon at the present time However I shall be glad, when we are in committee of the whole on the bill, to give the rates for all the western provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Milton Fowler Gregg: I know that is the rate for Alberta, but I am not prepared to give the exact British Columbia rate at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe it is higher.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gregg thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 291, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. W. E. Harris (for ihe Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 286, to amend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act.


Mr. Sinclair:: It is the intention that this
bill be referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.


Mr. White (Hastings-Peterborough):: I
would suggest that this bill be permitted to stand until nine o'clock, because it was distributed only after the house met. The Parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs told me that he would agree to both veterans bills standing until that time.


Mr. Speaker:: This will stand until later this day.
Motion stands.
Indian Act



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: I presume that both bills standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs will stand until nine o'clock, and the next order of business would be that the house go into committee of the whole on Bill No. 79.



INDIAN ACT


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 79, respecting Indians.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be useful if the minister would summarize the amendments which were made in committee so that the public, and particularly the Indians, may know what changes have been made since the bill was first introduced.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the amendments made by the special committee are underlined in the sections where they occur in the reprinted bill. In some cases the amendments were of a strictly legal nature and were intended to place a better complexion upon the section. Others were efforts, and successful efforts, by the committee to improve what we have been trying to improve for many months. They were all directed toward making the act clearer to those who would read it and to make the administration of the act more simple. Where a matter of policy was involved I think it is correct to say that in every case we tended toward granting the Indian greater opportunity for self-government in one form or another.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is appropriate on section 1 to make any general comments about the bill. I have no intention of making extended remarks, but as this will be the last opportunity during the present session to discuss the whole problem of Indians living in Canada I should like to make a few observations directed toward the future consideration of this extremely important problem.


Walter Edward Harris: Without desiring to interrupt my hon. friend, may I indicate to him that we have not yet dealt with the estimates of the Indian affairs branch. While I know that what he is going to say will be

with Bill No. 79. Bill 79 had not been formulated; it had not been introduced. No legislation amending the Indian Act was before that committee, so that all the committee had an opportunity to do was to give general consideration to the question of Indian affairs and to ways in which the former Indian Act might be amended.
Then we had Bill No. 267 introduced last year. I believe it is perfectly accurate to say that Bill No. 267 was not found to be acceptable. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee will recall, that the bill was not proceeded with after its introduction late in the spring of 1950. Now we have Bill 79 which again in fairness must be said to be an improvement in certain respects over Bill 267. The minister did call nineteen representative Indians, I think it was, to a conference. That conference, however, was held with the minister and officials of his department. No members of the house were in attendance, and there was no opportunity for the Indians themselves as a body to appear before the house or a committee of the house to present their views.
Therefore when the present Bill 79 was before the special committee set up this session there had been no representations by Indians to that committee as to their attitude with respect to the bill and how it might be further improved. It is an unfortunate fact that there are a large number of responsible Indians who feel that Bill 79 does not go as far as it might to improve the general position of Indians in this country. The bill, however, was fully considered by the committee, and I do not propose at this time to repeat all the arguments Which were advanced in the committee, because after all it is the purpose of such a committee that these arguments shall take place so that the bill may receive detailed consideration. Generally speaking, although not in any sense depriving members of the house of the right to full expression in the house, certainly it is at least logical to expect that the house will accept the work of such a special committee.
That being the case, I think it is doubly to be regretted that Indian representatives did not have an opportunity to appear before the committee. I might say at this point that twice during its proceedings motions were made that Indian witnesses be called, once at the first sitting of the committee before we embarked upon the detailed consideration of the bill, and the second time When the committee had considered the bill clause by clause and was about to bring its proceedings to a close. On each occasion it was formally moved that the committee, in addition to any other witnesses who might 80709-194J
Indian Act
be heard, should call upon Indian representatives to oome and give us the benefit of their views with respect to this legislation. On each occasion these motions were defeated by a majority of the members of the committee.
I think it is a pity that the bill, which is so important to the Indians, should be passed, first through the committee and now through the house without that opportunity having: been given. The history of the Indian Act, as I recall art, shows that the act has only-received major amendment on an average of about once every twenty years since it was first enacted. That is a very rough average, but I think it will be found to be the approximate interval between major amendments of thi3 legislation. Therefore this is long-term legislation.
This is legislation under which a very substantial number of men, women and children living in Canada will be governed. Therefore, now that the problem of Indian affairs has been brought before this house in a way it has not been for twenty years, at any rate now that our attitude toward Indian affairs has made a considerable advance, as I believe it has, and now that we are coming to believe, to insist and have it generally accepted that Indians can and should be made equal, it seems to me doubly important that the very people who are going to live under this legislation should have had the opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views as to the details of the legislation under which, if past history is anything of a guide, they will have to live for perhaps the next twenty years.
It is true that the committee did pass a resolution, in the form of an amendment to one of the motions to which I have referred, in which they said that the Indian Act should be reviewed at the end of two years. When the motion was made that we hear Indian representatives an amendment was moved that we should not hear the representatives at this time, but that the committee was of the opinion that the Indian Act should be reviewed at the end of two years. That, however, was only an expression of opinion by the committee, and I think I am correct in saying it does not have the force of law. It rests with the government and minister to decide whether or not the act will be subject to a general review at that time. So there is no assurance in that amendment that Indians will have an opportunity as a body, through their organizations, to have a thorough review of this legislation at the end of two years. As I say, past history shows that this legislation is not

Indian Act
thoroughly reviewed and subject to major amendments on an average of more than once every twenty years.
I express this opinion because, while I do not wish to dissent from the work done by the committee in so far as it improved the legislation, I do wish any acceptance of this legislation on my part at the present time to be subject to the reservation that it probably could have been further improved if the Indian representatives had been brought here and heard, and also to the further reservation that in that case no Indian or anyone else could suggest that the Indians were not fully and properly consulted and their views and wishes ascertained with respect to this legislation.
I should like to ask the minister what assurances can be given or whether in fact he will give an assurance that so long as he is minister he intends to accept that recommendation of the Indian affairs committee that the act be subject to review at the end of two years and that a parliamentary committee be set up at that time to hear from the minister and his officials on the operation of the new act we are putting through the aouse today.


Mr. Richard (Gloucester):: After listening to the remarks of the last speaker I do not know Whether those who sat on the committee for the last three or four years share the opinion I hold. I believe representatives of all Indian tribes throughout Canada were given .[DOT]every opportunity to place their problems before the committee; and I think the committee did marvellous work. Now the hon. member seems to wish to leave the impression with the house that all Indians were not given full opportunity to bring their problems to that committee. I d:o not believe the last speaker was a member of the old committee, and. I do not think he can have read all the evidence that was adduced before that committee. The members of that committee sat patiently during many sessions; and if this year it was not thought desirable to re-examine all the subjects we had already covered so thoroughly it was because we did not want to delay the legislation, which we thought implemented all the conclusions at which the committee had arrived. So I do not think the impression should be left with this house that the Indians did not have full opportunity to make their representations. I dare say the legislation is not perfect, but as with any other legislation it can be corrected in future if any correction is necessary.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think my recollection of the proceedings of the committee is quite in accord1 with that of the

hon. member for Kamloops. We discussed the matter of the further revision of the act, and on more than one occasion I gave the assurance that we would not have a long period between revisions. When we discussed the question of again interviewing the Indians I gave a categorical answer to a question put me by one of the other members of the committee. That appears at page 280 of the committee's proceedings. I was asked if another conference similar to that held with the Indians in February and March would be held within a period of two or three years, and I gave the assurance that the government would reconvene such a conference within that period of time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister not recall that on the last day of the committee's sittings, I think it was, I introduced1 a motion that Indian representatives be now called? Then what was described as an amendment was moved, that they be not now called but that the committee was of the opinion that the Indian Act should be reviewed at the end of two years. I have not the exact words before me, but I have a very vivid recollection that this was the effect of the amendment to the motion I had moved.


Walter Edward Harris: The resolution reads:
This committee is of the opinion, that no further evidence is now required for our purposes, but that we recommend that further consideration be given to the Indian Act in two years' time.
I gave an assurance that in that period we would convene a conference of Indians similar to that of last winter. I hope to bring in amendments to this bill next session. I am not going to wait for two years to amend the act, if it requires amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems to me the wording of the resolution goes a little further than that, in that the committee recommended that the Indian Act be reviewed in two years' time. I am quite sure that every member of the committee would agree that the officials of the Indian affairs branch, through the very fact of exercising their functions, must have the act before them every day, and to that extent it is being reviewed constantly. In the light of that fact the recommendation of a special committee of the house considering whether or not we should hear further evidence now, which expressed the conclusion that we should not hear further evidence now but that the Indian Act should be reviewed at the end of two years, I think must be taken to mean much more than a mere departmental review. I think it must mean the opportunity by a committee of this house to review the act at the end of two years. Certainly that is the sense in which

I took that resolution. I wonder if I am right in taking from the minister's latest answer that he understands the motion merely to mean that the act should be reviewed by the department, possibly with Indian representatives called in from time to time, or whether he does not think it means that the members of this house should have an opportunity in two years' time to make a further detailed study of the Indian Act.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member will recall that there were certain difficulties about voting on the various motions at that time. Later in the proceedings I find that the amendment was reworded, and it now reads in this way:
This committee is of the opinion that no further evidence is now required for our purposes, but that we recommend that further consideration be given to the Indian Act in two years' time.
Having stated earlier that the government would reconvene a conference of Indians, I assumed that was what the committee had in mind. I did not take this to be a direction, that a special committee should be appointed; but if that is what hon. members had in mind I am quite sure they will bring it to the attention of the government in two years' time.


John George Diefenbaker: Unfortunately I was
away when most of the discussion took place on this matter. But certainly my reading of the evidence that was taken and of the discussions that took place indicated to me that there was to be a review of the whole situation, not by the members of the Indian department but by the House of Commons.
I can say this, Mr. Chairman. I have been in western Canada during the last few days; and during my absence I have received letters from various chiefs in western Canada who are not at all satisfied with the situation under the act as at present amended. I feel that if the review is to be restricted to the members of the Indian department, such a review is worthless from the point of view of protecting the rights of the Indians in this country.
The Indian Act has been before the members of the department over the years. To say that any changes, alterations or suggestions as to improvement are to emanate from the members of that department certainly will hold out little hope that many beneficial changes will take place. Indeed, I have here a letter from a chief, written within the last few days, wherein he sets forth that various chiefs are even now meeting, or have been meeting within the last few days, with a view to making further representations. I speak of the descendants
Indian Act
of the chiefs who made No. 4 and No. 6 treaties in the province of Saskatchewan. I have had representations from chiefs in Manitoba. I also have them here before me. They understood there was going to be a further review in two years-


Walter Edward Harris: So there is.


John George Diefenbaker: -not by the members of the Indian department but by members of the House of Commons, with a view to bringing about changes and improvements.
I know that the experience of the hon. member for Essex West would go a long way in the convening of another committee to bring about the necessary changes that must be made. From my own experience I know there are in western Canada Indian tribes who have the right to ask for justice which, up to the present time, has been denied them. I think of the cases in which Indian tribes, within the last fifteen years, have been denied the right to take action against His Majesty the King. I know of one case that was taken-and successfully taken-arising out of highly improper conduct in connection with the handling of money belonging to the reserve. I refer to the Mistawasis case. A justice of the Court of King's Bench in Saskatchewan allowed substantial damages for the wrongs that had been done; and from that date on, no right of action has ever been granted to any Indian tribe in Saskatchewan that made application for a fiat that justice be done, so that action could be commenced.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member would not want to misinform the committee. That statement is not a fact.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. I understand that statement is correct. I was the one who made application for the fiat; and that is fifteen years ago. From the time that action was taken in the Mistawasis case before Mr. Justice McLean in Saskatchewan, fiats have not been granted. But we do not have to worry about fiats any more; for in the next few days when the act is passed-if it is passed-through this parliament doing away with the need for a fiat, the rights of all His Majesty's subjects, whether Indians or others, will not be dependent upon the caprice of any minister as to whether or not action is to be commenced.
I bring this matter to the attention of the minister at this moment and I say this. Will he consider carrying out the request of the Indian chiefs-and I think it has been brought to his attention on more than one occasion-for the setting up, with regard to these reserves where there are claims of injustices, a royal commission for the purpose

Indian Act
of investigating whether or not there is justice in the request of these Indians, to the end that every possible feeling of injustice on their part will be removed by a judicial or semi-judicial inquiry? If that was done, I think much improvement in morale would result.
During the period that the minister has been in office I know that he has brought the various Indian chiefs to Ottawa, that they have discussed the matter with him and with his departmental officials, and that improvements are taking place. But there remains in the hearts and the souls of many Indians throughout the western provinces an abiding feeling of injustice. Under treaty they turned over everything they had to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and they feel that the promises that were made by her Britannic majesty's representatives have not been fully carried out. I feel that if such a course were followed by the minister it would go a long way towards removing that feeling which prevails among many of these bands and tribes, namely that injustices that have accumulated over the years have not been satisfactorily eradicated or removed or that compensation for wrongdoing has not been given. Realizing that the act as it is being amended today by this bill will remove some of the injustices, in all seriousness I ask the minister to give consideration to the appointment of a royal commission so that whatever other financial injustices may exist may be determined and proper compensation may be given to those affected.
This act has been in effect-I speak from recollection now-for approximately seventy years, with few changes. The revamping of this act has been an unusually difficult and trying job. It has required the co-operation not only of the committee of two or three years ago but of the departmental officials. It has received the co-operative assistance of the minister. But I feel that one thing still remains to be done. I feel that everything possible should be done to remove from the hearts and souls of Indians everywhere, particularly those in the western provinces- and of them only I speak-the feeling of having suffered what they believe to have been injustices.
I remember so well, in 1934, when the Indians gathered near Duck Lake on the sixtieth anniversary of the signing of the treaty that ceded those great western claims to Queen Victoria and her successors, Lord Tweedsmuir met with the descendants of those Indian chiefs, some of them sons of the chiefs who had been signatories to that treaty that gave to the British crown that great area extending from the western shores

of Hudson bay and thence to the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains. Those chiefs, some of whom were sons of the chiefs who were the signatories to that treaty, one after the other raised the question as to instances of what they believed to have been injustices for which they and their bands would be entitled to compensation. I remember so well that Lord Tweedsmuir, as His Majesty's representative, promised them in the name of His Majesty that any injustices and unfairness that may have existed would be removed. Of course he had to speak within the limits of his constitutional position. I make this appeal to the minister. Let us not only make this act work, but let us also do something to remove that feeling that does exist-and I think it rightly exists-that in too many cases, as a result of the law being what it is, and as contained within the Indian Act, promises that were made to these people, the aborigines on the western plains, have in fact not been carried out in accordance with justice and just dealing, as promised at the time the treaties were made.
I ask the minister again, has he given consideration now, since a new act is about to be passed, to the setting up of such a commission, free of and removed from the Indian department, judicial, if you like, in its nature, to the end that the claims for compensation, if they have any legal basis, will once and for all be determined by a judicial body, and, if there is any legal basis for the claims of these Indians, that compensation be given?


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: I do not want to create the impression that I am an expert on Indian affairs. As a matter of fact I do not know of any experts on Indian affairs in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank goodness this is one department that has no experts.


Donald Ferguson Brown: However, I do think that the impression that has been given by the hon. member for Lake Centre is not fair either to himself or to the members of the Indian administration. As I said, I do not know of any experts in the house, with probably one exception, namely, the minister himself who has within a very short period of time taken such a keen interest in the affairs of the Indians that he has grasped the situation among the Indians, as I see it, in a commendable way. I do believe that in fairness to the Indian administration, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River, this matter is one primarily of administration. In that regard the Indian problems have largely, if not dissolved, at least lessened in the past few years. This



IS. 1951

[Stage Direction]
has happened, as the hon. member for Peace River has pointed out, since the committee was formed.
Under the able assistance of Mr. R. A. Hoey much was done to improve Indian affairs. I think that the Indians of this country, and the people generally, owe him a deep debt of gratitude. He has been succeeded by Major D. M. MacKay, who is now director of Indian affairs. He comes to the administration after many years in this work, and after having lived for some time among Indians on the west coast. He has done a remarkable job in improving Indian administration. I think we are very fortunate in Canada to have an administration of this type and an administration headed by a person of such integrity and ability.
Mr. T. R. L. Maclnnes has had many many years of experience. He is well versed in the history, lore and habits of the Indians, and has a great sympathy for their problems. I know that the hon. member for Lake Centre has, with me, a very high regard for his integrity and his ability.
John George Diefenbaker: That is correct.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I would not have it appear that there is any reflection whatever on the department heads. I could go on all through the department and point out individuals who have sacrificed considerably to be of service to the Indians.
There is another matter which has been brought up, and which I think should be referred to, namely, that we have not given the Indian an opportunity to appear before the committee. The committee formed in 1946 took as its theme that we were going about to help the Indians help themselves, and I think they have adhered strictly to that policy. We brought to Ottawa to appear before this committee Indians from all parts of Canada. When we could not get the Indians to agree we brought different factions from different provinces. In addition to that, a select group of the committee, ten in number, went down to the maritime provinces, and there heard every individual Indian who had anything to say on Indian affairs. I personally, and at my own expense, I may say, went out to the west coast to see how the Indians lived, to hear them and as much as possible to observe their habits and customs. I know, too, that the minister has travelled across this country hearing and seeing the Indians, and has tried to get a greater knowledge of their problems.
You will recall too, sir, that early in the session Indian representatives from every province in the dominion were brought to Ottawa, and they met with the minister in
Indian Act
closed conference to discuss the bill which is before the committee now. It may be argued that there were some there who were not representative. Well, those who have any knowledge of Indian affairs will realize that it is very difficult to get one person to represent any large group of persons, and it is no exception among Indians, but I feel sure, from the knowledge I have of the representatives who attended that conference, that the persons who were in attendance did truly represent the large majority, and by far the largest majority, of the Indians in the provinces from which they came. They were in conference for several days. They went over this bill, clause by clause. I was not in attendance myself. What I am saying is hearsay. They went over the bill clause by clause and voiced any objections that they might have, and these objections were brought before the committee of this house which has considered this bill, so that when it is said that the Indians have not been heard, it is not quite correct.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of serving on the Indian committee for a number of years. While the redistribution in 1949 took away most of the Indians it was my honour to represent, I still take an interest in Indian affairs.
I entered the chamber too late to hear everything the hon. member for Lake Centre said; but from those few remarks I did hear it appeared to me he was suggesting that a claims commission should be set up.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not wish at this time to go over the ground I covered before when speaking in the house. My remarks at that time were lengthy, and anyone who wir.hm to know what I said will find them record i 1 mi Hansard.
I still think however that if we are gomg to convince the Indians that we are giving them a new deal we will have to correct their thinking. If one argues with them he will find they still think, indeed they are positive, that we owe them something, and that we are keeping something back from them.
The minister has heard me say many times that the Manitoba Indians will quote what they were promised back in 1871. They continue to tell their families that these are the things the white man or the Queen Mother promised them, and that the obligation has not been fulfilled.
I have never thought in terms of a royal commission, but I do believe a claims commission such as that suggested by the hon.

Indian Act
member would be useful, so that whoever was placed in charge of it could get these matters straightened out once and for all. The Indian population is increasing, and as it does so there will be more who will believe that there has been an injustice.
I believe all hon. members realize it was necessary to revise the Indian Act. While I did not always get my own way in committee, I was content to accept the rule of the majority. I would have liked to see the Indians back here in Ottawa, so that I would have had the opportunity to talk with them and to ask them some questions. They, too, would have had the opportunity to ask questions. A majority in the committee however ruled to the contrary, and I feel one must abide by the decision of the majority.
To let hon. members know what I have in mind I should like to place on record a telegram I received. We were led to believe that when the Indians went home they were satisfied they had got everything their own way. This telegram addressed to me at the House of Commons states:
Informed special committee passed bill seventy-nine without incorporating recommendations from conference Indian representatives. If report true deeply regret and strongly protest such action. Urge reconsideration of contentious clauses during debate. Urge amendments suggested by conference be included. Consent of governed in principle concern.
That is from the Indian Association of Alberta, one of the men who were here to meet the Indian committee. I should have liked to see these Indians again. I did not have the opportunity to speak to the Indians from Manitoba. It is possible that, had they been here, we would not have got any further, but I believe that opportunity should have been given.
I shall not take more time in speaking on this occasion. There are one or two questions I should like to ask at a later time. We must realize however that the Indians have gone home and that they are still not satisfied. Some of my friends will say that we will never satisfy them. My reply however would be that we could go a long way toward meeting more of their grievances; and I think a claims commission would be one way of helping to straighten out their thinking which, it may be, is not always in accordance with the facts.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to speak at length now, because on a previous occasion I did discuss the matter more fully. I believe however there are some points which ought to be made before we proceed to discuss the bill in detail.

It is my view that in large measure the value of the bill will depend upon the general attitude in the minds of those administering the act. If the attitude is taken that the rights of the Indians ought to be extended, and that on all occasions they should be given the benefit of the doubt, then I believe the act will pretty well take care of itself. However if the opposite view is taken we shall require an exceptionally good piece of legislation to prevent considerable damage being done to the Indians.
To make it perfectly clear to those who may read my remarks that I am not suggesting in any way that those who are now administering the Indian Act are negligent or deficient in their general attitude, let me say at once that, so far as I can see, the present Indians branch has the right idea, and is working forward progressively. I believe that should be said.
Almost anyone must agree that the present bill is much superior to any bill of a similar kind presented to any Canadian parliament heretofore. I believe anyone who knows the facts must agree that the minister in charge of Indian affairs has far surpassed anyone charged with a similar responsibility in the whole history of the Dominion of Canada. As such he deserves the credit and honour due a man who discharges his duties in a statesmanlike manner. I believe history will give him credit for what he has already done, and what I believe he still will do.
Perhaps I should add that I am not alone in the opinions I express. A statement from the Alberta Indian Association, issued since the bill was published, states that the new Indian Act in the present revised form is an excellent piece of legislation. It points out that the government has made the most serious study of the Indians themselves, and seems genuinely interested in giving these people a charter that will ensure their steady progress and development.
In those sentiments I heartily concur. Yet I believe there are some words of warning which ought to be uttered on this occasion.
There appears to be a belief among a good many people that the day ought to come by and by when the whole matter of Indians can be' written off as finished business in Canada. People entertaining such views take the general point of view that we ought to integrate the Indians with the whites just as rapidly as we can. We might even have regulations to impose enfranchisement upon the Indians as one means of achieving that objective. Such people hold also that we should disintegrate and ultimately eliminate the reservation, and they have in mind certain

devices whereby that objective could be attained, even by using the present Indian Act.
Between me and the men who take that attitude there is a sharp and I might almost say violent opposition in point of view. I do not believe the day will ever come, at least in our time, when we can write off the Indian as finished business. If we are not to write him off as finished business we must make provisions for expanding our services to the Indian down to the latest generation. Once that principle is laid down and followed our whole approach to the Indian problem will change.
There .are certain rights which I believe the Indians possess. First of all, the Indian has a right to remain an Indian and to have his children and his children's children remain Indians to the latest generation if they so desire. There are certain reasons why this is the case.	Indians are very
religious. Their traditions go back through the millenniums. They do not want to see themselves disappear as Indians any more than the members of the tribe of Judah desire to see themselves cease to be members of the tribe of Judah. Those who understand the Indians know that they are just as tenacious in their feelings in this respect as are the descendants of Judah. No people, no officials can disregard that profound and far-reaching fact without doing violence to sacred beliefs among the Indians. If some day Indians outgrow those beliefs then the situation will be different. But as long as they maintain those beliefs which have been handed down to them by their fathers, we have a reality there, even though it may be an intangible reality, which we must not lightly treat.
The Indian has the right to have his reservation preserved inviolate as a place of refuge for his children and his children's children whenever those children may find themselves unable to compete successfully with non-Indians in the struggle for existence. Let us consider just how serious that can be in the fearful times through which we are going. Every hon. member knows that it is next to impossible today for the most qualified non-Indian to get employment if he is thrown out of employment at 65 years of age. A great many people, regardless of how skilful they may be, find it next to impossible to obtain employment when needed after 50 years of age. If we are going into that sort of thing it must be obvious that the Indian is going to be under a most serious disadvantage when he attempts to compete in the economy of the non-Indian.
Indian Act
To me this is a most solemn consideration, and I think all hon. members will agree with me. If the white man, the non-Indian, insists on so managing his affairs that there is little use for our own people after they are 45 or 50 years of age, he must realize that he has a responsibility toward the Indian which must be assumed. If we are going to indulge ourselves in the luxury of supporting a financial and economic system like that, we at least should see that the Indian does not have to pay the price.
The Indian has the right to remain out of our wars if he sees fit. We say that the Indian was born here, that he is a Canadian and therefore has a responsibility to defend this country. That is one point of view. But in most of the original treaties there was a stipulation that the white queen would never call upon the Indians to fight her wars. That was a sacred promise. We must take into consideration along with that fact the fact that these wars that we fight generation after generation are of our own making or the result of the economic system under which we choose to operate. That is known to all well-informed people. The Indian should not have to go and shed his blood to fight our wars.
The Indian has the right to the highest degree of training of every kind. Up to the present we have not begun to give the Indian that right. In only a very few cases scattered far and wide has there been even an approximation to doing that. Yet some people are thinking of pushing the Indians out into the stream of economic competition where they will have little or no chance at all. The boys and girls of even our race are going out into that stream of competition and are finding that at 45 or 50 years of age they are unable to compete successfully!
All we have to do is remember what happened during the depression when Canada had a million and a quarter of her people unemployed, not because they were not able to work, not because they were not willing to work, not because there was not a tremendous amount of work to do, but simply because we insisted on following a financial and economic system that made it almost impossible for men to get work under the best of circumstances. If we insist on keeping that financial system, how in the world can we justifiably expect the Indian to suffer for that?
The Indian has a right to adequate rehabilitation. It is too late now to train many Indians who are 45 or 50 years of age, even those of 25 years of age, but surely something ought to be done for these people. Until such time as we are positively certain

Indian Act
that Indians can be fully quaiiiied for participation in the economic struggles of our time it seems to me this right ought to bear a special cogency in our minds.
The Indian has a right to compensation for the injustices that have oeen done him in the past. The hon. member for Lake Centre, the hon. member for Peace River, the hon. member for Selkirk and a great many other hon. members have said things which indicate they are in general agreement with that statement. How are we going to give the Indians compensation for the harm that has been done them during the 150 years or so we have been in this country? The first thing we have to do is to find out what that harm has been and its impact upon the Indian of today. Therefore it becomes necessary to address ourselves to the problem of discovering the solution to this situation.
Some people say: Certain groups of Indians have no treaty rights, and therefore we have no further obligation to them. For example, I am told that a great many Indians in eastern Canada have not been fortunate enough to be treaty Indians while the Indians in the western provinces have become treaty Indians. There are people who say that because we did not sign any treaties with those Indians in the east they are not entitled to as fair consideration as our Indians in the west. I think such people overlook the important fact that our fathers had become a great deal more civilized by the time they dealt with the Indians of the west than their fathers were several generations before when they dealt with the Indians in the maritimes.
We talk about the Indians becoming civilized. The white man had to become civilized, and the average white man among us has a long way to go yet before he is really civilized if you take the word "civilized" to mean thoroughly prepared to co-operate with his fellows in obtaining the betterment of all, and that is the only sound definition of "civilized".
Some people say that the Indians have no special legal rights, and why bother about such Indians? I confess that such arguments seem to me quite unsound. The Indians' rights in my judgment result from the fact that America was the Indians' promised land. Maybe that does not mean as much to certain other members of the house as it does to me. Judging from the expressions on the faces of the members present I think however it does mean as much to them.
This land was their land. The land of both North and South America was the Indians'. They owned it by prior right. The

Indian settled here first and had been here for thousands of years before the whites ever came. We must never forget that. Then the white man came to this promised land of the Indian. He did not conquer the Indian. He negotiated with him as an equal. Then he killed the Indians' buffalo with his guns. He caught the Indians' fish with his advanced methods of fishing. He cut down and ruined the Indians' forests with his advanced methods of cutting them down. He burned them down by devices which he had and which the Indians either did not have, or else knew a whole lot more about how to take care of. He spoiled the Indians' pastures. He trespassed on the Indians' hunting and camping grounds. He dried up and polluted the Indians' rivers and streams; he fenced off the Indians' trails.
Every single step in that unhappy process rendered it more and more difficult for the Indians to survive. Will anyone seriously argue that the Indian was not establishing rights by indirect measure when all that was occurring? Will anyone seriously argue in his saner moments when he is no longer a politician that when the white man did all these things he did not assume a responsibility to the Indian which the white man's children should at least endeavour to discharge? As a result of all these things the white man did against the Indians, the Indian was left with inadequate means of adjusting himself to the white man's economic life. Generally speaking the white man did nothing about it at all except to beat the Indian whenever he could.


An hon. Member:: Beat?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, beat. At this point let me read a short passage from this same document of the Indian Association of Alberta just to show what the white men have done. I am taking it right out of its context but it is appropriate. It is as follows:
And in the late 1800's, when Indians were being brought into treaty, both Indians and mixed bloods were offered land scrip in exchange for treaty rights. This scrip entitled the holder to crown lands, and of course was valuable. Unscrupulous whites cheated many an illiterate and simple Indian or "breed" out of his or her scrip by offering in trade a bottle of rotgut whiskey, a few yards of print or some gaudy trifles. And of course the victims kept on living with the band, for they couldn't do anything else. Eventually, in P.C. 1182, 1901, Hon. Clifford Sifton, minister of the interior, ruled that these people could be taken back into treaty, with the value of their squandered scrip to be deducted from their annuities. But Bill 79 states outright that no recipient of scrip or any of his descendants may be registered as an Indian.
That is painting an ugly picture in big broad splashes, is it not? Every member of this house who has any genuine contact

with the Indian situation at all knows that this kind of thing has occurred and occurs today. In my judgment there is only one way in which we can deal with this whole situation satisfactorily. That is by doing what I suggested the last time I spoke, namely, setting up two specific commissions. These commissions would not be set up under the Indian Act, but would be commissions which would work in co-operation with the department in administering the Indian Act. The first one would be an Indian claims commission that would probe into history, find out the facts, and then find out what the impact of those facts is upon the Indians today and what measures ought to be taken to reimburse or recompense the Indian so that his children may know that something was done at least in our generation to be fair to him.
Then we should have an Indian rehabilitation commission, as I suggested before. No Indian department could do this work. The personnel of the department are so overworked now that all you have to do is to look at them to see that that is so. You can step into the office of almost any one of these men and you will see that they are positively overworked. How in the world can men like that, burdened with thousands and thousands of administrative details for many of which they have no guide to follow, use the imagination and initiative which is necessary to enable them to adapt the Indians to the particular circumstances surrounding them? Let me give an illustration concerning the Indian reserve which I have the honour to represent. In our area there is a beet growing section for which there is need for a great number of beet workers. If the appropriate officials could come and train the Indians to be beet workers, as they could, as skilfully as the Indians of Caughnawaga have been trained to become steel workers, then as long as the beet sugar factories remained there the Indians would be assured of good jobs off the reservation every year. They would learn to be just as successful at that kind of work as the d.p.'s who come from Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and other places, and fit right into that scheme and prosper among the beet fields. This is only an illustration; there must be countless instances from coast to coast in Canada. An Indian rehabilitation commission would undertake to discover these possibilities of training Indians to adapt themselves to the economic life surrounding them and in due time would make them a far happier and more useful people both to themselves and to us.
Indian Act
Indians of today have still other grievances. With all the other things we have done to the Indians our government now insists on taxing them on the income they make off the reserves. Numbers of my fellow members in the house seem to think that is all right, but to me it is positively revolting. We say to the Indian in effect that we simply defy him to adapt himself to conditions outside the reserve and make a success, but that if he does we will tax him for the privilege of doing so. I do not see how anyone can face with equanimity a proposition like that, it is so outrageous. Let us take the Caughnawaga people, for instance; suppose they are able to make a pretty good income off the reserve. They could return to the reserve and improve it; buy more land, do reforestation, restock the streams, and all that sort of thing. They could do it if they could take back to the reserve the income they earned elsewhere, but no; as soon as they make any money the white man steals it from them in taxes so they go back practically impoverished, just as the white man in general goes back to his home with a pay envelope altogether inadequate to meet his needs.
The situation thus confronting the Indian is quite hopeless. The white man insists on doing this also; or, if he does not exactly insist on it, there are indications in this legislation that he may do so! If an Indian does excel, if he establishes himself in a conspicuous manner as a success among the white men, the government might say, "Well, you have done very well. You can get along without assistance. We do not need to help you any longer. We will enfranchise you and turn you loose among the whites." It will not matter at all if that Indian's grandchild should not be as successful as he was. The grandchild may not be successful at all; nevertheless he will be enfranchised and to the end of time all the privileges and rights which were guaranteed to him as an Indian will be taken away because he had an ancestor who happened to be successful. Is that not almost unbelievable for intelligent men in 1951 to be contemplating? Yet that is the sort of thing presumably facing the Indians. They are very bright and keen, and though they do not talk very much about it they understand how serious it is. It fills them almost with dismay, all over the land.
I promised, Mr. Chairman, that I would not speak too long. I intend to keep that promise, but I want to say one further word which will perhaps offer a ray of hope. I want to project myself now into the minds of those men who say we have to get to the point somehow where we can write off these Indians, because if

Private Bills
we make it possible for them to multiply the first tiling we know we shall have millions of them and we shall not be able to take care of them. They think we are going to have more old age pensioners. Now that we are bringing the pensionable age down to 65, the first thing you know we will have to bring it down to 60, then to 55; and they want to know where in the world we are going to end. I realize men are thinking in such terms today; but let me assure people from coast to coast in Canada and the members of this house that if we would adopt a realistic financial system these worries would disappear at once. Then we would not ask where we were going to get the money to do all these things for the Indians, for our aged people, and others. We would ask whether we in Canada can produce the milk and the cream and the butter and the eggs and the meat and the lumber and the clothing and the fuel. Can we produce enough of those commodities to take care of all those who will be born to us and to the Indians? The answer must come back a thunderous "Yes". Well, all we have to do is adopt a financial system that will be realistic in respect to our productive capacity so the financial system will reflect the facts of our production. Then we shall have no cause for any anxiety as to our ability to advance the welfare of our Indians to the very end of time, or as long as the good Creator wills that v/e remain here as a free and independent people.
Now may I close with one more word of commendation to the minister. I cannot put into language, without seeming to overdo it, my admiration for the kind of work the minister has done during the last year; nor can I convey to the government all the appreciation it would be fitting to express. By reason of what it has done for the Indians, on paper at least, and by reason of the attitude I find in most of its members, I believe the Liberal party deserves high commendation. I think it stands unique in the history of Canada in its manner of treating our Indians.
With these few words, which I utter sincerely and from my heart, I shall conclude. I wish the minister greater and greater success and greater and greater vision. I wish the men of his department also greater vision; and I hope they will have a minister of finance before long who will be able to make the financial system reflect the physical realities of Canada.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
[Mr. Blackmore.f


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for private bills:
Mr. J. W. Welbourn (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, if I have the unanimous consent of the house I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore), that Bill No. 269, an act to incorporate Independent Pipe Line Company-letter D-8 of the Senate-be dealt with as the first order of business at this time.
My reason for making this request on behalf of a Canadian oil-producing group who desire to build an oil pipe line over an allCanadian route from the Edmonton area to Vancouver, is that all engineering and other preliminary work in connection with this proposal has been completed and the sponsors of this bill would appreciate having an early opportunity to appear before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman unanimous consent?


Mr. W. A. Robinson (Simcoe East):: If I may
be permitted to do so, I should like to say a few words in connection with the motion of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Welbourn). I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the present condition of the order paper, especially with regard to private bills. At the present time there appear on the order paper as items Nos. 30 to 91 a number of divorce bills. Following those divorce bills, as item No. 92, appears a bill to incorporate Border Pipeline Corporation, sponsored by myself. Item No. 93 is a bill with respect to the British Columbia Telephone Company, sponsored by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite). Item No. 94 is a bill sponsored by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross). There then follow a number of divorce bills, and then items Nos. 162, 163 and 164 which are bills other than divorce bills.
Last week we spent two evenings-Tuesday evening and Friday evening-on a discussion on second reading; and I think in that time we disposed of only five divorce bills. At this rate of progress, it is extremely doubtful whether the other private bills which I have mentioned would even be heard in the course of this session, although most of those bills appeared on the order paper before the divorce bills which are now at the top of the order paper.

3 want to make it quite clear that, as far as I am concerned, I do not withhold unanimous tconsent requested by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson. At the same time, however, I feel that the house might be disposed to give some consideration to the plight of these .other bills that I have mentioned. If I might .make a suggestion, I think that the hon. member might enlarge his motion, to have his bill appear at the head of the order paper and to have those private bills other than divorce bills move up ahead of divorce bills, from the position they at present occupy on the order paper.
It would appear that in this session there Is going to be some substantial discussion with regard to the divorce bills. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated that such a discussion might well take place. I should like to say here and now that I feel that that is the sole Interest of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and that he is not in any way attempting to delay or to hinder in any way the consideration of the bill which I am sponsoring or those which are sponsored by any of the other hon. members to whom I have referred. But in view of the situation with which we are undoubtedly confronted, I feel that the house might wish to give some consideration to the plight of these private bills I have just mentioned.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned with regard to the hundred and thirty divorce bills that are now before the house. I think there is nothing more vital than the need for dealing with these bills here and now; and I shall have to object to giving unanimous consent for any change in the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the rules, unless there is unanimous consent, we shall have to follow the order set forth in the order paper. I will not make the ruling immediately, but I am sure that unless there is unanimous consent I cannot put the motion which has been made by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Welbourn). I understand that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) wishes to speak.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
appeal for unanimous consent for the motion that has been introduced. I have no interest in that particular motion, but I am the sponsor of a bill which appears as item No. 162 on this order paper. It is a bill that will be completely non-controversial. I should think it would take a matter of only a moment or two for the house to deal with it; it is for the incorporation of a
Private Bills
religious organization. If the pattern followed last week in the two hours devoted to the discussion of private bills is pursued this week and succeeding weeks, it means that bills such as the one I am sponsoring, will not be reached during this present session. I think that would be a deplorable-result.
To facilitate dealing with urgent business, I would urge that the house might well give effect to the request made by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Welbourn)-for unanimous consent to proceed with hiS' bill, and then permit bills like the one I am sponsoring, which are not controversial in any way and are brief, to be proceeded with', similarly by unanimous consent.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Speaker, I am sponsoring Bill No. 268, which appears as item No. 163 on the order paper. It is just as important as the bill being sponsored by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). But I am prepared to wait. There is no problem here at all. All we need to do is .to pass these divorce bills. Then we can get on with our business. I am prepared to wait until these divorce bills are dealt with.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. Accordingly, I cannot put the motion which has been proposed by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Welbourn).



EMILY RITA ROWLANDS SIMPSON

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Emily Rita Rowlands Simpson-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Gagnon:: I wish to say that I will vote against this bill. No one has the right to ask for a divorce. There are cases in which an annulment-


The Chairman:: Order. Before proceeding with this debate I would ask all hon. members to proceed in accordance with standing order 58. Paragraph 2 says:
Speeches In committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Therefore I shall ask all hon. members to confine their remarks to each particular clause of each particular bill.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: No one has the right to ask for a divorce. There are cases in which a marriage annulment can be allowed by the religious and civil authorities of my province; but the Quebec law states very clearly that marriage is indissoluble. I will not undertake to give the reasons justifying such legislation,

Private Bills-Divorce
but I can say it is in our statutes to stay forever. The speeches of my C.C.F. friends the last time this matter was before the committee will not make us change our minds in that regard. The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar has said that whether or not we agree with the principle underlying divorce-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. The principle of the bill may be discussed on second reading, but in committee hon. members must coniine their remarks to the particular clause under discussion. We are on clause 1 of this bill.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, I am quoting what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said when this bill was discussed last Friday. I said that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said last Friday that whether or not we agreed with the principle underlying divorce was an immaterial point. By showing so little interest in a social problem which involves such disastrous consequences he reveals, I believe-


Major James William Coldwell: On a question of privilege, I followed that statement by saying that we had divorce now. By leaving out those words the hon. member is changing the meaning of what I said. We have it now. It is immaterial whether we believe in it or not, we have it with us.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I quoted exactly what the hon. member said.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. We are considering clause 1 of Bill 111. I will read the clause:
The said marriage between Emily Rita Rowlands and James Arthur Simpson, her husband, is hereby dissolved, and shall be henceforth null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
That is what we are discussing.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: In this case, as in every similar case, it is the fate of the family which is at stake, and I cannot be the accomplice of the instrument of its destruction. Divorce strikes at the very root of family life. It is the victory of selfishness over sacrifice. In serving the people by helping them to find stability and security in the home we are directly serving the nation. That is the reason I ask for the rejection of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall I report the bill?


Alphonse Fournier: On
division.
Bill reported.



IVY LUCAS LEVITT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 112, for the relief of Ivy Lucas Levitt-Mr. Winkler- Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section !*-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words with respect to clause 1 of this bill. This is a case which I feel deserves the support of this house, and I for one not only intend to vote for this bill, but I feel that all hon. members should vote for it.
I shall take just a moment to indicate in brief the circumstances. This is a case of a woman living in England-she is still there. A Canadian soldier went overseas during world war II and married her. They lived together while they were both in England, and they had one child, a son. After the end of the war the soldier appears to have deserted his English wife and returned to Canada. For a number of years she did not hear from him or about him in any way. Later she learned that he was back in Mont -real and had married again.
Some time after this second so-called marriage the second wife discovered that her husband was already married to a lady in England, and so she obtained an annulment of her marriage in a Quebec court. That annulment was granted on December 19, 1946. When the lady in England learned of the situation she took steps to get a divorce from her Canadian husband. The woman who became the so-called second wife appeared as the chief witness for the deserted wife. She appeared at the Senate and gave evidence that she, not knowing that this man had been previously married, went through a form of marriage with him, and subsequently lived with him. On the basis of that evidence the Senate committee had no hesitation in approving of this divorce.
This is one of those human tragedies about which we all feel very sad. It is unfortunate that nothing can be done to force this man to contribute to the support of his and his wife's child in England, but surely the least we can do for this English girl is to see to it that she gets this divorce. This is one case where I felt I should not mention any of the names involved. I do call upon the house to support this bill.


Mr. Hansell:: I should like to say just a word or two about this bill. I support the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in suggesting that this house should pass this bill. However, there are one or two things I should like to say about it. The point I would like to make now I

do not want to be regarded as any reflection upon the committee of the other place that heard this evidence.
I notice that the acting chairman was Senator Fogo. I understand that he is rather an outstanding barrister, and perhaps-


An hon. Member:: I would not say that.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know. There may be other opinions. That is my understanding. Perhaps I will have to take his authority for it. But there is one place in the evidence in which the marriage record-that is the second marriage record-is presented, and the acting chairman says: "It is not a record of marriage, because it was not a marriage at all, but a form of marriage which she went through."
I am one member in the house who has performed a good many marriage ceremonies; and I have never performed one yet, and had it registered, where I did not feel pretty certain that the marriage, as performed, was more than a form of marriage. It may be a technical point, but I would point out, as was pointed out in the evidence, that this certificate of marriage was also registered in the superior court, district of Montreal. If anyone wished to apply to the superior court for an abstract of that certificate, he would have proof enough that this woman was married to the man, even though he had no right to marry a second time.
During the first world war I was called up under a certain category for military service. It happened that I was married, and should not have been called up in the first category. When I saw the authorities I told them I was quite prepared to go into the services at the proper time. However they wanted proof of my marriage, and so I submitted to them-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is not directing his remarks to the first section of the bill.


Ernest George Hansell: I realize that the evidence to which I am referring is not a record of my marriage. I was only illustrating that the military authorities at that time would not accept the marriage certificate as proof of marriage.
What happened? I had to obtain an abstract of the registration of marriage, and that abstract was what proved to the satisfaction of the military authorities that I was married:
The second marriage of the bigamist in this instance was registered with the superior court, district of Montreal. I say that it was something more than a simple form of marriage. Another point I would make is that this woman was separated from the man
Private Bills-Divorce
when she realized he had been married before, and was still married. She got a separation, and there was produced in evidence a document issued by the superior court annulling that marriage. Therefore I say this divorce is based upon a recognition that adultery had been committed.
I should like to ask the sponsor of the bill if any steps were taken whatsoever to charge the person named in the bill with bigamy, and to punish him for it?


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, I must
reiterate what I said earlier, that the evidence is before every member, and has been mailed to every member. As a rule, bills are distributed in a hit or miss fashion. In respect of divorce bills however the distribution is made in a very orderly manner. I can only repeat that all the evidence is before every member, and he may read it for himself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On the preamble.
Mr. Graydon:: A member is up and wants to speak.
(Translation):


Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to declare myself emphatically and unalterably opposed to the passing of any divorce bill. I do not intend to labour the point. The divorce question has been amply threshed out in the house.
Nevertheless, I wish to say that no manmade law will ever destroy the indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage, which we consider absolutely inviolable.
I was anxious to make this profession of faith because I feel that I am in duty bound to object to the passing of these bills, on behalf of my constituents and even of the citizens of my province. I wanted to let it be known that I shall vote against any and all divorce bills introduced in this house.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 113, for the relief of Marguerite Marie Rita Fournier Cook-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is
another case which it seems to me should have been dealt with by a court. However, as the matter stands it is before us and I

Private Bills-Divorce
think hon. members should be made aware of the particulars of the case. As the sponsor has pointed out, every member receives copies of the evidence; but it appears they do not read it.
As a matter of fact I have read more of them in the last few days than I read in all the years I have been here. My only reason for doing so is that if parliament has decided we are going to deal with cases like this, then we should deal with them in a responsible way, and I for one will do my part.
This is the case of a young woman by the name of Fournier who married a man named Cook. They had one child. Mrs. Cook is now living in Toronto, and Mr. Cook is living in Hull. According to his own evidence he is living there with an unmarried woman by the name of Miss Fleming. In his evidence before the Senate committee Mr. Cook admits his relations not only with Miss Fleming but with other women.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Furthermore, when the
respondent, Mr. Cook, was before the Senate committee it appeared he had no sense of shame whatever, either for his behaviour or for the irresponsible way in which he was treating his wife and child.
I shall read from the evidence only those questions and answers which relate to the question of support of the child. I am refraining from reading some of the other questions and answers in the evidence because, while they are public property, I do not like to put such evidence upon the pages of Hansard. The following questions and answers are pertinent to the point I have mentioned.
By the Acting Chairman:
Q. In the period that you have been living apart from your wife, have you supported the child?
A. No, sir, I have not.
Q. Or Mrs. Cook?
A. No, sir.
Q. Not at all?
A. Not at all.
I find1 nothing in the evidence to indicate any attempt on the part of the Senate-I realize their helplessness; indeed I emphasize it-to do anything to get this man Cook to face up to his financial responsibility in connection with the support of his child. This story is a very sordid one. I feel, as I said the other night with respect to another case, that this woman who lives in Toronto and is looking after her child has the right to be freed from her marriage to this man. But it seems to me that parliament should know what it is doing and we should concern ourselves with finding a better way to deal with cases like this, particularly when the interests of a child are concerned.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I am sure
that no one wishes to interfere with the rights involved in a case of this sort, or in a case like the one we discussed a few minutes ago. What I want to emphasize is that we are going to pass these bills. In the last two bills there were children involved. Neither the other place nor this place has any say in having the man in each of these cases made responsible for his own child.
If this was before a court I know that under the law that exists in some other places, including the United Kingdom-some of our provinces follow United Kingdom procedure-the court would order that some payment must be made -by the father for the support of the child. We punish the innocent woman in -cases like this because there is no proper -court which could deal with these problems -adequately and in a humane and proper manner. A few minutes ago an hon. member objected to divorce, but the fact is that we have divorce now. We -cannot say that there is no divorce in the province of Quebec -or the province of Newfoundland because these bills are before us.
Let us do this in a manner that will protect innocent parties. It should be done by proper judicial proceedings -and not in the manner adopted by parliament at the present time. Admittedly the man in this case is a bigamist but there is no evidence tha-t he has been dealt with according to the laws of our land. I am persuaded that if the case h-ad come before a -court -some instructions would have been given and the man would have been dealt with. We -are not -denying redress to people who need redres-s, but the fact is that we have neither -the time nor the -opportunity to go into these cases. There are 130, 140 or 150 before us, with more coming -in every day.
I am not -criticizing the other place for the manner in which they have dealt with this bill. I think the hon. gentlemen in the other pla-ce do the best they can under difficult and- awkward -circumstances. But surely the time has come when this parliament should remove these matters from its jurisdiction -and have them properly and adequately dealt with. That is the point we are trying to get across to this committee, to this parliament and to this country.


David Arnold Croll: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has stated that his purpose is to draw -attention to the manner in which these bills are handled. Speaking the other night the hon. member for Vancouver East said that there was no other way we -could1 do it except as it was being done at the present time. I rather agree with him -and I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar

>vho says that the purpose is to protect innocent children. But innocent people are being hurt by virtue of what we are doing onight in discussing these bills in the way we are. Those people are entitled to more consideration than they are getting. Here is the fallacy of the argument presented by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The only possible thing that we can do, the only authority that we have-


William Alfred Robinson: I rise to a point of order,
we are on a section of the bill and the hon. member is entering into a general discussion. If we are going to consider these bills one by one then I ask Your Honour to direct that the discussion be relevant to the section before us.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The point of order is well
taken.


David Arnold Croll: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said that he wanted a court to deal with this matter, and that is pertinent to the bill. The only court that we could clothe with jurisdiction would be the exchequer court.


William Alfred Robinson: I rise again to a point of order. We should discuss the section of the Dili which is before us.


David Arnold Croll: I am merely following the example set by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and he never gave me a wrong steer before. If he was right, then I am right, and I agree that he was right in following that course.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to section 1.


George Matheson Murray: Important as these cases may be, we are Christian people and we are living in a Christian country.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the particular section of the bill.


George Matheson Murray: I bow to your ruling and I say that-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I think the hon. member for Spadina still has the floor.


David Arnold Croll: When the hon. member for Simcoe East rose to object to my remarks I was indicating that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had thrown out what I thought was a proper suggestion, and I felt it only right that it should be amplified and explained. This section reads:
The said marriage between Marguerite Marie Rita Fournier and Peter Frederick Cook, her husband, is hereby dissolved, and shall be henceforth null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
Some body clothed with authority to deal with the matter of marriage has come to a
Private Bills-Divorce
conclusion and I submit that it is pertinent for me to discuss some other body that we might create to deal with the matter of marriage. That is all I am doing. The suggestion was made that a court should deal with this matter rather than the Senate.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member is discussing procedure in general.


David Arnold Croll: No, no. I am not discussing procedure in general. I am saying that a court may be delegated to perform this duty, and that the exchequer court, a specific court, should be delegated to discharge this particular duty. All I want to say is, if it is the desire of the house to deal with the matter in that fashion, then all right. On two other occasions the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre introduced a bill. The first time it was talked out and the last time it was defeated on division. He is a very capable authority on procedure and he knows full well how this can be brought about. All we require to do is to have the Senate pass the necessary legislation setting up the exchequer court-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I think the remarks of the hon. member are out of order.


David Arnold Croll: I am in favour of passing the bill, Mr. Chairman.


George Matheson Murray: The world was recently shocked by the announcement of a divorce concerning Aly Khan.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I would point out to the hon. member that there is nothing concerning Aly Khan before the committee.


Mr. Knight:: If I may, I should like to take the discussion back for a moment to the question of the bill now before us. I think the hon. member for Spadina was getting away from clauses of the bill. I should like to speak to the bill and I should like to ask a question of our legal friends or perhaps of the sponsor. I am glad that the house has apparently decided to meet its responsibility to discuss these measures because I am tired of giving blank cheques so far as the passing of these bills is concerned. I should like to return to the question of the custody of children. I know nothing about law, and I should like to ask the sponsor if the court of the other place has any jurisdiction in the matter of the care of children or if it deliberately ignores such responsibility. I want to ask him first if it has any responsibility. If he can assure me that it has none, then of course I would not say that it is ignoring its responsibility because there would not be any. Can the sponsor answer that question? Then I should like to continue for another minute or two.

Private Bills-Divorce


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I can give the hon. member no assurance.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The reason I asked the question was that I should like to refer to page 8 of the evidence concerning Bill 113. It has to do with the custody of the child, in question. If the court of the other place has no jurisdiction over the custody and care of children, then I should like to know what court has. I should also like to know whether at a later date the husband, presumably the guilty party, would be able to use the processes of the courts to claim this child from the mother who has custody over a period of years. Questions were asked of the mother presumably by the lawyer in the case, and the part I should like to read is as follows:
Q. Who has the child?
A. I have, and I have supported him continually.
Q. You have supported that child continually and you are asking for the custody of that child?
A. Yes.
You will notice that the mother said that she was asking for the custody of the child. Then the evidence continues as follows:
Q. And he is now eight?
A. Nine years of age.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: She is not asking here
for custody.
It is on the basis of that little interchange that I should like to know what is the responsibility of the divorce committee of the other place with respect to the question of the custody of children. Can the wronged1 person have any assurance when he or she appears before the other place that some arrangement is going to be made for the children, or is it a fact, as some hon. member mentioned the other night, that not only do these cases have to come before a committee of the Senate but other proceedings have to be instituted in order that there may be a decision with respect to who shall have the custody of the children? This is a point that I should like to have cleared up. Perhaps some of my learned and honourable friends would speak on it so that we may have the information if, as the sponsor says, he does not know.


Ernest George Hansell: I should like to ask a question of the sponsor of the bill because I am a little confused. I find that the party in this case who is asking for relief lived in Toronto previous to her marriage, was married in Toronto, and since leaving her husband in 1948 has lived in Toronto. I should like to know why this woman who lived in Toronto, was married in Toronto, and now lives in Toronto, has to come to this place for a divorce.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I have no information.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed' to.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the bill carry?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: On division.
Bill reported.



PAUL EMILE PIUZE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 114, for the relief of Paul Emile Piuze-Mr. Winkler -Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, some of the hon. members are suggesting that I give more of the story this time, but this is a particularly sordid case and I do not intend to place upon the records of this house some of the evidence contained within these pages. I would point out that in this case both of the parties are residents of the province of Quebec, and I may say that there are children of the marriage. In this case it is the woman who has run out on her husband, and I use those words advisedly, having read the evidence. As a matter of fact this case, like the last two cases that we 'have had before us, is one in which no detectives have been called as witnesses.
The evidence seems quite clear that this woman has not only deserted her husband but has been committing adultery with various other persons. Yet I find that the husband, out of earnings of $75 a week, is still contributing $40 to $45 a week to his wife. Of course the main reason why he is doing that is to enable her to support the children. Apparently they are still in her custody, or at least they were at the time this case was heard before the Senate. He did say he was going to try to get the children at some future time. In view of the carryings-on of the woman in this case I certainly think it would be better for the children to be with their father rather than their mother, though in saying that I am aware of the very human tragedy involved in this case. I say it is very sad, and I certainly feel sorry for the man who reached the point where he had no alternative but to apply for this divorce.


David Arnold Croll: Would the hon. gentleman
answer a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I can.


David Arnold Croll: I think you can. You brought up the question of children. Do you know of any method by which we could provide for the custody and control of children in any court the dominion government might establish?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member's question is well put, if I can answer it without getting out of order.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: In my opinion that matter is not at issue and the question is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even though the question may be difficult to answer satisfactorily I submit that it is in order, because in the evidence in this case there is reference to the children. The fact of the matter is that the only court I could suggest in a case such as is dealt with in Bill No. 114 is the Exchequer Court of Canada. That being a federal court it could not exercise jurisdiction as far as children were concerned; that matter would still have to be deglt with by the courts of one of the provinces. It seems to me, however, that if we get this matter of divorce dealt with in a court we are making a step in the direction of having the whole matter dealt with by a proper court on a legal basis. I know there are times when a party before the Senate will agree to support the children, but such an agreement is not always carried out. As a matter of fact I had a letter today concerning a case in which an agreement was made before the Senate, but once the man got away he refused to sign any such agreement. In other words the Senate has no power to bind or obligate the parties with respect to children. I recognize the pertinence of the question asked by the hon. member for Spadina, but I submit that if the divorce itself were being dealt with in a court it would make possible a more proper consideration of this question by another court later.


George Matheson Murray: May I ask the
religious background in this case?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?


George Matheson Murray: I ask that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre give us the religious background of the case to which he has been referring.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know the background.


George Matheson Murray: The religious background.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not the sponsor of the bill; ask the hon. member for Lisgar. It is his bill.


Ernest George Hansell: There is just another point or two I would like to bring out in respect to this particular case. In speaking about another case the other evening the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said there was a very strong suspicion of collusion. I suggest that this is a similar case, and I want to point out why I think so. When the man
Private Bills-Divorce
in this case found that his wife's behaviour was something that he could not countenance he refused to live with her. That was in January, 1949; but he continued to live in the same house, under the same roof. He lived with her in that way for a year and one month, during which time he had some trouble even to the extent of accompanying her to a hospital where she was examined because, the evidence states, she was afraid she had some social disease. He talked with her then and continued to live in the same house until eventually, according to the evidence, the woman went off with three men at the same time. Then he took proceedings.
During that time, and right up to the time he appeared before the Senate committee, he had supported her to the extent of $40 or $45 a week out of his earnings of about $75 a week. I would add that those who gave evidence against this woman were two of the men who accompanied her. I claim that such conditions would indicate that between this man and his wife there was either collusion or connivance; there is some technical difference between those words which I have not been able to fathom. There was collusion here. I am not suggesting that there may not be cause for divorce, but I do suggest that in many of these cases it might be as well for the committee to pay a little more attention to whether or not there is any suspicion of collusion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the title carry?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I am asking for a recorded
vote.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: On what; on the bill?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: Nine o'clock.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall I report progress on this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



THIRD READINGS

Howard Waldemar Winkler: third reading of the following bills:
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Emily Rita Rowlands Simpson.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Ivy Lucas Levitt.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Marguerite Marie Rita Fournier Cook.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?

Pension Act


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, and bills read the third time.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock the
house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



SPECIAL FORCE VETERANS


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 287, to make certain rights, privileges and benefits applicable to persons serving in that part of the armed forces of Canada designated as the special force and to certain other members of the Canadian forces.
Motion agreed to and bill read ithe second time.


Hugues Lapointe: I would move that the bill
be referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hugues Lapointe: the second reading of Bill No. 288, to amend the Pension Act and change the title thereof.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I should like to say a few words on this amendment to the Pension Act. Under this amendment it is proposed, among other things, to provide that widows of members of the forces with children will be able to be paid on the basis of schedule B for orphans; in other words, that their pension for their children will be doubled. Under schedule B the payment for the first child is $228; for the second child, $180 and for each subsequent child, $144. On the basis under which they are being paid now, that of the orphaned child, there will be $456 for the first child, $360 for the second child and $288 for the third child. That is doubling the amount which will be payable under that clause.
The point that I want to raise with the minister is this. I do not see anything in the bill which gives any increase to an orphaned child. There are numbers of children who are orphans of members of the forces and they are receiving, according to the schedule which I have just read, $38 a month in the case of one orphan or $68 where there are two. I do not see anywhere anything to indicate that this payment is being increased.
[Mr. Speaker.!
It seems to me that if we are doubling the amount that is payable to a dependent child, certainly we should be doing something with respect to the orphaned child. I would ask the minister to comment on that feature and tell us just why we should be doubling the one without giving any increase to the other, as I read the act.
The other matter that I wish to comment on is that of education for children of the veterans. Under this act we are proposing to continue the payment up to twenty-one years of age where the child is able to absorb the education, is passed as being able to do so, and requires further education. That is all to the good. But again I say that in the case of orphaned children we are doing nothing under these amendments to the act, as I read them. If I am mistaken in this, I hope the minister or his parliamentary assistant will correct me.
It seems to me that we in Canada owe a duty to these orphans of the men in our forces. It seems to me that we owe these orphans an opportunity to receive as good an education as they can absorb or are capable of attaining. If their fathers had returned to Canada we would have provided, under the veterans charter, for their training in specialized trades or they could have had up to four or five years in university. Where there are orphaned children, it seems to me that we should be prepared to give them an opportunity equal to that which would have been available to their fathers had they returned to this country. I see nothing in this act which provides for that.
I think it is a disgrace in this country if we are going to leave orphaned children of members of our forces in the position that that they will not have every opportunity of obtaining the best education that it is possible for them to have. I do not see any provision made for that under the act. I should like the minister to comment on those two matters before we give second reading to the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister speaks-now, he will close the debate.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Speaker-


Percy Ellis Wright: I was just asking the minister a question.


An hon. Member:: We are not in committee..


Mr. Speaker:: If there are questions to be asked, I would suggest that the minister answer them when he is replying and closing

the debate. Has the hon. member tor Mel-fort (Mr. Wright) completed his remarks?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I would call on the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough).


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure whether the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) had reference to orphan children who are now in the care of grandparents. But if he did not have reference to that particular type of case I would ask the minister, when he is considering the matters referred to him by the hon. member for Melfort, to consider also those children who have been orphaned, whose grandparents are now looking after them and who have been receiving a pension. I have had a number of inquiries from people in these circumstances who have found the load increasingly heavy and have wondered whether or not they come under the provisions of this act.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Hugues Lapointe: In commenting on the
remarks made by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), I should like to point out that heretofore the rates of pension awarded to orphaned children have been double those of the pension awarded to children of disabled pensioners or widows. The rate paid up to now to the children of disability pensioners and widows, as the hon. member knows, was $19 a month for the first child, $15 for the second and $12 for each subsequent child. At the same time the law provides that in the case of orphans being brought up by their grandparents'-and I believe this would deal with the case just mentioned by the hon. member for Hamilton West-the grandparents are acting as guardians, and those orphans are paid the doubled rate. It is $38 a month for the first child, $30 for the second and $24 for each subsequent child.
What is behind the amendment which we are introducing this year is this:	It was
brought to our attention that in many cases young widows with children found themselves in great difficulty because they could not supplement their pension income by outside work and that, although they were the mothers and guardians of the children, they were getting just the ordinary rate. In order to help out these widows we are this year amending the act to give to the children of these widows the same higher rates which had been paid in the case of orphans. That is the purpose behind the present amendment.
Indian Act


Percy Ellis Wright: There is no increase in the orphans' rate at all?


Hugues Lapointe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.


Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 286, to amend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 79, respecting Indians-Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce)-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask the
minister a question in regard to Indians who have been off the reserve for some time. I understand from a letter that I received from Dr. Moore, director of Indian health services, that they are not entitled to medical services. Why should they not receive medical services? One man was mentioned who is receiving the old age pension of $25 a month, which is allowed under the act. But he has no money to look after himself so far as medical services are concerned. He cannot even buy medicine. He finds it hard enough to buy food for himself.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps we can discuss that better on the medical services section. I do not think I know too much about it. It is under national health and welfare, but I do know they have a regulation as to a time limit beyond which, if an Indian is off a reserve, he does not normally receive the service. If the hon. member would allow his questions to stand I will answer them on one of these sections, when we come to it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes. I have a letter here
which says that if they are off the reserve for 18 months or longer they cannot get medical services. There should be a change there. I do not think it is fair.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Indian Act
On section 3-Minister to administer act.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Under which section do the medical services come?


Walter Edward Harris: It is section 72 or 73.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Eskimos.
Mr. Charlton:: I objected to this clause
on the second reading of the bill, and although it has been amended in the committee all the objectionable features of the section have not been removed. There are many other things that the minister or the governor in council can do by proclamation that would be detrimental to the Indians all across Canada. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops, that subsection 2 of section 4 be amended by inserting after the word "may" in line 18 the following:
With the consent of the Indians or band concerned.


Walter Edward Harris: We had a vote on this in the special committee, and there is no change in the position of the government with respect to this section. It is designed to assist the administration of the Indian Act, and to assist in removing those restrictions in the Indian Act from an Indian or a band from time to time, as circumstances may require. It is action taken by the governor in council, which would be on recommendation of course of the minister, and we do not feel that it is necessary to have the consent of the bands in all cases.


Mr. Noseworihy:: I should like to support the amendment. As a member of the committee may I say the fact that a majority of that committee favoured the government's position does not mean very much, except that a majority of the committee were simply following the minister's direction.
As I understand it, the purpose of this bill is to gradually encourage the Indians to become enfranchised and to assume their position as democratic citizens in Canada. One of the ways in which this can be achieved is by giving them such responsibility as they are capable of discharging.
One of the criticisms I have had is that in more than 70 clauses of the bill the responsibility rests upon the minister or the governor in council without consultation with the bands or with any of the Indian representatives. If we are aiming to educate these people, to teach them to assume responsibility, we must give them some responsibility and not place these matters entirely in the hands of the minister or the governor in council, without even consulting with the band or with the people concerned.

In this particular instance it would seem to me that it would be quite logical to consult the band in the case of people who have probably spent their lifetime on the reserve. I feel they should not be removed at the whim of the minister or the department, and particularly if there was opposition to that on the part of the band. For these reasons I would support the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, having seconded the proposed amendment, I should like to say a word in support of it. Section 4 as at present worded gives to the governor in council authority to declare by proclamation that this act or any portion thereof, except sections 37 to 41-and only five sections are excepted'-shall not apply to any Indian, or any group or band of Indians. As I recall, sections 37 to 41 are those dealing with the surrender of lands. All matters outside the scope of those five sections can be dealt with by the governor in council by proclamation, if section 4 in its present form is accepted.
This means that the very matter of the status of an Indian can be dealt with by proclamation, without the consent of the Indian. The very existence of a band, their status as a band of Indians, and their continuance or otherwise as a band of Indians can be dealt with by the governor in council by proclamation, without consent of the band.
We have heard in committee, and in the house before the bill went to committee, that one of the efforts being made-and a very praiseworthy one indeed-is to achieve equality of status for the Indians; and not only to put it into legislative form but to convince the Indians that that is our intention. Indeed it is suggested that, by our example, and through the means of this legislation, we should encourage the Indians to assume equality of status with us, so that eventually they might graduate into full citizenship and absolute equality with the white man.
Surely it goes without saying that no municipality in Canada would give consent to having its status interfered with or changed by proclamation of the governor in council, without the consent of the municipality; and I am sure the House of Commons would not consent to any interference with its status on that basis. I very much doubt if the house would consent to authorizing the governor in council to make a proclamation changing the status of a white individual, without his consent. In most cases, so far as white people are concerned, before any change in status can be brought about, and before any penalties for breach of legislation

can be imposed, or anything of that sort, legislation which must receive the sanction of parliament is required.
Here, however, it is not legislation; it is a proclamation of the governor in council. In view of the fact that there are so many administrative matters which must also be dealt with under this statute, I think it is quite acceptable to have the matter dealt with by the governor in council, and not to require legislation before anything can be done; but if we are going to place that tremendous power in the hands of council, namely the power of changing the status of individuals, groups or bands of Indians, then surely we must put in a safeguard that the change must be made with the consent of the Indian or band concerned. That is the effect of the amendment.
It does not make it impossible to make these proclamations. The section, if amended as suggested, would read that the governor in council may, with the consent of the Indian or band concerned, by proclamation declare that this act or any portion thereof, except sections 37 to 41, shall not apply to any Indians or any group or band of Indians, and so on. So it does not take away any of the ultimate power of the governor in council, nor does it in any way abridge the things that may be done by proclamation of the governor in council.
All it does is to require that before these things which affect the very status of Indians, whom we say we are trying to place on a basis of equality, can be done, this consent by all concerned must be obtained. I appeal to hon. members who, I am sure, are desirous of creating in the Indians a sense of equality, to give to the Indians some control or some say in their own affairs, and to require that their consent must be obtained before any change in their status can be brought about by proclamation by the governor in council.


John Horne Blackmore: This is one of the sections to which I referred in a general way when I spoke before six o'clock, and pointed out that in the Indian Act there were powers which, if used by an administration genuinely interested in the welfare of the Indian, could be instruments of benefit, but which, if they were used by an administration aiming to hurt the Indians, could become instruments of intimidation.
In effect, as I understand it, this section means that the department could excommunicate a band of Indians-and I use that word, not in its religious sense, but as it would be envisaged in connection with the operation of the act. Consequently if Indians, let us say on the Blood Indian reserve, which I have the honour to represent, became self-
Indian Act
assertive, or endeavoured to insist upon their rights in certain respects, as time goes on officials could say, "You boys had better be good, or we will bring section 4 on your heads." That is precisely the possibility involved in this section, as I understand it.
I believe it was pointed out in committee and, as I recall, the minister, as well as officials in his department, assured us that a section almost identical with this one had been in the act from the earliest time. However the Indians had never known it was there and consequently were not greatly concerned. It was said that all through the years, since it was first put into the act, it has never been used as an instrument of intimidation. Perhaps that is correct; but it is no proof that at some time it might not be used as an instrument of intimidation. We know there are certain Indians who are quite outspoken. For instance the Six Nations are outspoken, and in that they are not doing anything more than their forefathers told them to do, through traditions passed down to them through the years.
If the Indians are to become the selfreliant, courageous and outspoken people we hope they will become, and if they are to enjoy the freedoms we enjoy, then certainly they should not be put in a position where they can be intimidated through a section of this kind.
I think I have expressed clearly the way this appeals to the Indians. I believe it will be found that the Six Nations Indians are very much afraid that this section will be used in exactly the way I have indicated. As I said in committee, the department would not lose any material advantage by accepting the amendment which has been suggested. I believe if they did lose any flexibility of action in the administration of the act, through the inclusion of those words, they would gain in confidence and good will of the Indians to an even greater extent.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word, not so much as to the merits of the amendment, because others are more competent to do that, but rather to point out that we did have a debate on this subject before it went to committee some weeks ago. At that time I believe it was stressed by the minister, and I am sure in perfect sincerity, that what we were wishing to do, among other things, was to raise the status of these fellow citizens many of whom, incidentally, had served their country so well in wartime, and who were therefore entitled to consideration of their status.

Indian Act
The bill went to a committee and it has now come back to us here. Many of us were [DOT] not members of that committee. Reasons which seem to me to be most convincing have been given from this side for this amendment. If I remember correctly, the minister said that when the bill was before the committee this point had been raised and the committee had voted against it; that that was the government's view and they had not changed it. That seems to me to be an odd state of affairs. There are many on both sides of the house who have not had the benefit of hearing the discussion before the committee and surely we are not going to be left in a position where the matter is going to be voted on just because there is a majority without anyone on the government side undertaking to answer the arguments which have been made.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I did not make it clear in my explanation that I had discussed this particular section fully on second reading and gave them all the reasons which I believe I could give now as to why this section should remain in the bill. This section has been in the act since 1880, and, as the hon. member for Rethbridge has said, it did not cause concern to the Indians until the past few months when the matter was raised by some hon. members opposite.
The section is designed to aid in the flexible administration of Indian affairs so that the Indians may have the benefit of being removed from some of the restrictions in the act. If you did not have a section of this kind you would not be able to relieve the Indians from some of the restrictions unless the act was brought back to the house and it was done by way of amendment so that a particular section would not apply to a particular band. This is a salutary provision in the interest of the Indian and will be used for that purpose.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I accept the answer of the minister which I believe is given in absolute sincerity, that this section is intended to be used for the benefit of the Indian. The minister's answer seemed to be based on the assumption that we were moving to strike this section from the act. No such thing has been suggested. It is admitted that there must be flexibility. I stated specifically that we were not trying to strike out this section because then you would have to have new legislation each time you wanted to make some change. I admitted specifically that it was probably necessary for administrative flexibility to do many of the things that are contemplated to be done by proclamation of the governor in council.

The point of the amendment is not to strike out this section so as to make it necessary to have legislation to bring about any change. The point of the amendment is merely to require the consent of the band or the Indians affected before a proclamation is issued. The minister's answer has not dealt with that point at all. His answer has dealt with a situation based on the assumption that we are attempting to remove the section from the act, which of course is not so. We are merely attempting to ensure that the people whose welfare will be affected, whose status is going to be changed by the proclamations which are contemplated, must first give their consent.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Will the minister state how in his opinion the adoption of this amendment will interfere with the carrying out of the objectives of this bill?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, that is a very simple matter to deal with. As the committee knows, as the house knows from the discussion on second reading, and as the special committee knows, the Indians have not been unanimous on many sections of this bill nor are they unanimous on how the Indian affairs branch should administer particular matters. Everyone here knows that the opinion of a band council of this year may not be the opinion of a band council next year. If you take the sense of a band at any given moment it may not be the sense that would be shown the following day.


Joseph William Noseworthy: That is true of the Canadian electors.


Walter Edward Harris: Quite so. As the
committee knows, in dealing with band affairs and Indian affairs a final decision must be made by someone as to what is in the interests of the Indians under all the circumstances. The power to make that decision is vested in parliament, and by the Indian Act is vested partially in the minister and partially in the governor in council. The final decision in these matters must rest in those hands rather than, in some cases, in the hands of the band council or of the individual Indian.
In some cases the sections give authority to the minister to do certain things with the consent of the band council. In other cases he may do certain things without the consent of the band council. I cannot recall a case, except in the surrender clauses, where the consent of the band is necessary. But certain privileges are vested in the band council, certain authority is vested in the minister, and certain authority in the governor in council.
If the time should come when a band would be benefited under certain circumstances by

the action of the governor in council taken under this section then I think parliament would hold the governor in council responsible if he did not exercise his judgment at that time as to what was in the interests of the band.
I do not want to precipitate a debate on later sections, but I might mention that this is the section which might be used to alter the liquor regulations which are covered by sections 95 to 100. It might very well be in those cases that one would obtain the consent of the band council, but as I have said at any given moment a decision may have to be made in the interests of the band and, since the responsibility for making those decisions is vested here, we shall have to have the right to make them.


Joseph William Noseworthy: All the minister has told us is that in the opinion of his department the Indians at no time can be trusted to know what is best for them.


Walter Edward Harris: I said nothing of the kind.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister has indicated that the minister or the governor in council must under all circumstances decide that they know better than the Indians affected what is in their best interests. How in the world does the minister expect the Indians to become independent and responsible citizens so long as he refuses them the right to decide what is in their best interests under any given circumstances?


Walter Edward Harris: The provisions in the bill which give authority to the Indians and to the band council to exercise certain powers are the sections under which the band and the Indian may exercise those powers. If he exercises those and shows discretion in doing so-I know most of them are doing this at the moment-if he continues to learn the practices of democracy, we hope and believe that ultimately he will be not only ready but willing to accept the responsibilities for a much greater portion of self-government. Until that time there must be a division of authority among the minister, the governor in council, the band and the Indian.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think the minister has appreciated the point we have tried to make. The amendment merely seeks to safeguard the welfare of the Indian. Before any proclamation is issued that affects the status or welfare of individual Indians or bands, it is asked that those Indians or bands must be consulted and give their consent. The minister has given an example. He says that section 4, subsection 2, might be used
Indian Act
to change the application of the liquor laws by exempting a certain band or group of Indians from the provisions of the bill. If one thing has been obvious in the consultations which members have held with Indians and with bands of Indians, it is that they are greatly concerned lest they should be subjected to wide-open liquor laws. Admittedly that is a question on which opinions vary considerably from band to band. It must surely therefore be a question which could most properly be dealt with in consultation with the band concerned. I understand that some bands feel now that they should be placed on a basis of absolute equality with white citizens. Other bands, as the minister has pointed out in his notes of the conference which he held with the Indians, feel that they should have a midway position, and there are others still where the majority feeling of the band is that they do not want any liquor on their reserves. They do not want their people allowed to buy liquor and they do not want the white man to be allowed to sell liquor to them. It is a case where opinion varies widely.
Surely therefore we should not give to the governor in council blanket authority to change the Indian Act with respect to liquor laws without the requirement that he consult first with the band and make the change only with the band's consent, in, effect if the band first requests it, which would of course imply their consent. That is all the amendment seeks to do, not to take away from the governor in council the ultimate power to exempt a band from the specific provision of the bill by proclamation,, but merely to ensure that that power is only exercised with the consent of the band concerned,. I think the example which the minister himself gave is a most powerful example to reinforce the proposition that the band's consent must be obtained before these proclamations are issued.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope the minister has helped other people more than he has helped me because I am still in great difficulty. When the minister began his remarks I thought he was really going to take the position that there was such a vacillation of feeling backwards and forwards that you could not, to use the words I think he used, be sure that an expression of opinion you got one day would be valid the next. The hon. member for York South answered that fairly well, but then the minister to my surprise went on and apparently made it quite clear that I was quite wrong in taking that point from him because he went on to explain that in certain cases they did act on consent.

Indian Act
Indeed he surprised me still further by saying, if I got his words right, that in the case of any question, of liquor, which I would imagine would be one of the most difficult and important involved, they might very well ask the consent of the band. That seemed to me to take the ground right from under the argument I thought he was making because he did not stick to what I thought was his first point, that you really could not get a consent that would stick. He does not maintain that point nor does he take the position that you must consult with the band only as to things that are rather unimportant- because surely the liquor question is not unimportant. Therefore I am really left quite at a loss, particularly in view of the explanation of the hon. member for Kamloops that this is only a minor restriction, to know what the argument is that the minister is making.


John Alpheus Charlton: After listening to the discussion on the amendment, it would appear to me that the minister does not want to agree to it because it is pretty obvious that he himself wants to do something that is going to be disagreeable to the Indians, or he would consent to it.


An hon. Member:: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is the only conclusion one can draw.


Lionel Chevrier: Bosh.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is the only possible conclusion one can draw, because if he cannot get the consent of the band then it is obviously against their wishes. What would he possibly want to do against the wishes of the band that leads him not to agree to the amendment? What, for instance, would he want to do that would be so drastically against the Indians that he could not get their consent to do so? The matter of the liquor law is pretty important. The minister made the statement that they would probably get the consent of the band to make any change so far as that is concerned. In my estimation that is probably one of the most important parts of the whole act. In the case of some reserves it is more important than others. In some reserves he would not have any trouble getting the consent of the band to take the band out from under the act with respect to the liquor laws. In other cases it would be very difficult for him to do so. Would the minister suggest that he would want to do so against the wishes of the band? That is the only obvious conclusion we can draw.
Amendment (Mr. Charlton) negatived: Yeas, 23; nays, 63.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
On section 25-Transfer where Indian ceases to reside on reserve.
Mr. Caiherwood:: Mr. Chairman, I was not a member of the special committee, but section 25 does not appear to be quite right the way I see it. Ownership of property has always been considered a very sacred thing. Under this section provision is made for compensation to the Indian for permanent improvements, but why should the land revert to the band without some compensation being made to the owner in the same way that compensation is made for improvements to the property?


Walter Edward Harris: This is the case, Mr. Chairman, of an Indian who transfers to another band, or something like that, and ceases to be entitled to live on the particular reserve. He has made improvements on his land, erected buildings, and of course is entitled to receive compensation for them. The Indian Act, however, does not provide for anyone holding land on a reserve except a member of that band, with one exception which you will see later. Therefore his transfer rights are limited to persons who can take land on that reserve. If he is unable to sell the land within six months the provision is that the land will revert to the band, who will hold it and perhaps later dispose of it to some other Indian; but, that having been done, that the band funds should recompense him for the improvements he has put on the land.


A. Earl Catherwood: He should be entitled to
some compensation for the land itself, if it is his own property.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 26 to 31 inclusive agreed1 to.
On section 32- Sale or barter of produce prohibited unless superintendent approves.
A. Earl Catherwood: This section may have
been meant as a protection to the Indians, but surely by this time they have come of age and should be capable of carrying on their own negotiations. I would like the minister to give the committee a little enlightenment on that point.


Walter Edward Harris: In the first place this only applies to the western provinces, which are named in the section. This was a matter of some debate with representatives of my hon. friend's party on the special committee. Some of them favoured more restrictions on the Indian in disposing of his produce than are contained in this section. This goes back a great many years and has

been a protection for the Indian in the west, where it has been needed at times. By subsection 2 we are providing that if the Indian desires, and if he has shown his ability to transact his own business, the minister may exempt him from the provision. In the special committee I gave the assurance that, as far as the administration of the section was concerned, we would try to exempt every Indian at the earliest possible moment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 33 to 42 inclusive agreed to.
On section 43-Particular powers.
A. Earl Catherwood: What about property
held by the Indian outside the reserve? Oan the minister appoint executors to administer estates which contain holdings not within the reserve proper?


Walter Edward Harris: The minister
can appoint the executor, but in order to convey the property the will would have to be registered in the registry office of the county in which the lands are situated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do I understand the effect of sections 42 and 43 is that Indians themselves may not make wills at all?


Walter Edward Harris: Where do you
read that?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am asking the question. Section 42 says "all jurisdiction and authority in relation to matters and causes testamentary is vested exclusively in the minister". Then section 43 says that without restricting the generality of section 42 the minister may appoint executors, and so on. I am not making a statement; I am only asking a question. Is this merely a provision to take effect in certain cases where Indians have not themselves acted, or does it take away their right to act?


Walter Edward Harris: If my hon. friend will look at section 45 he will see that the opening words are: "Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent or prohibit an Indian from devising or bequeathing his property by will". Section 43 in effect constitutes the minister a court for the purpose of probating wills, appointing administrators, and generally dealing with the estates of Indians.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it the practice in dealing with the estates of Indians under this and succeeding sections to deal with them in conformity with the laws of the province in which the property is situate, or is a standard practice followed throughout the dominion? The thought behind my question is that
Indian Act
if we are eventually to make Indians absolutely equal with us, sharing the same citizenship, the time will come when in respect to these matters of wills, succession to property and so on they will be subject to provincial law. So I am wondering if the administration of this and subsequent sections is now in accordance with the law of the province in which the property is located.


Walter Edward Harris: We take our legal advice, of course, from the deputy minister of justice, who advises us on the particular points. The general rule is that we follow the common law in the province concerned. My hon. friend has raised a question, however, that is not settled in the Indian affairs branch. It may well be that we shall soon have to adopt a uniform practice throughout the dominion or, alternatively, have all these matters dealt with in provincial surrogate courts under provincial law; and I must say I am studying that at the moment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If a recommendation will be of any assistance at this time I would like to express the personal opinion that the move should be toward bringing these things under the same system in effect in the province so that there will be no eventual problem and no adjustments required in that regard.


Walter Edward Harris: I think that is logical, and we are looking at it in that light.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is it true that in his will an Indian may not provide that his widow shall have a life lease on his land and property, and that it shall go to a son or daughter, as the case may be, on the death of the widow?


Walter Edward Harris: That is a rather interesting point of law. It relates to the right an Indian has in land under his location ticket. That is not the full right of a fee simple, as we know it in Ontario, for example; and it has been suggested that since the Indian has what is in effect a right somewhat less than that, he may not be able to establish a life interest but can only establish a permanent interest the same as his own. I believe the particular point my hon. friend has in mind actually arose because of the unusual will in that case. I would prefer to put my answer this way, that we are trying to find a method by which Indian wills and the disposition of Indian lands will be comparable with the provincial registry laws, as the hon. member for Kamloops suggests, or something akin to that, so there will not be a distinction.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: First of all I have to ask the minister a question because

Indian Act
I am not as familiar with this act as I should be. Section 45 (3) states:
No will executed by an Indian shall be of any legal force or effect as a disposition of property until the minister has approved the will or a court has granted probate thereof pursuant to this act.
There may be some qualification of those words I do not know about; but assuming that a court has granted probate, notwithstanding that has the minister all the powers contained in section 46?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister may direct that probate of a will be proceeded with through the surrogate court. If he does that he divests himself of any control over the ordinary administrative processes in that estate except as it relates to land on a reserve, because a will cannot take effect to transfer land on a reserve without the minister's consent, since the minister must sign all transfers whether of land willed or sold or otherwise.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then may I assume that there is a section somewhere else in the act providing that the effect of a court granting probate is what the minister has just said, in other words that he will not have all the powers contained in section 46?


Walter Edward Harris: That is in section 44 (2) and (3). Section 44 (2) gives the minister permission to direct probate through a surrogate court, and 44 (3) says the court may exercise this jurisdiction but not with respect to lands until the minister has intervened.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 44-Courts may exercise jurisdiction with consent of minister.
Joseph William Noseworthy: Just under what circumstances would the minister likely be called upon to give consent for the court to exercise jurisdiction?


Walter Edward Harris: There might be a complicated will which we might decide should be determined in the provincial court. The greater part of the assets of the deceased might be situated outside the reserve or something of that kind.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Have the descendants or the heirs the right to ask that the case be settled by the court? Have they that right to take the case from the minister to the court?


Walter Edward Harris: No; they have not that right. But since we do this work without charge, if the heirs ask us to transfer it to a provincial court, and if in doing that

there were no great inconvenience to all the parties concerned, I am sure we would be glad to get rid of it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 45 agreed to.
On section 46-Minister may declare will void.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not for
the moment saying whether section 46 is right or wrong; but it seems to me that we may as well face the fact that we are really just taking away any rights of any kind. I go on to section 47 because an appeal is provided for there. But how realistic is it to talk about an appeal with regard to the people we are talking about and whom we deal with in the words used in section 46? First let me read one or two subsections of section 46 to show how utterly illusory their rights are. You can hardly use the word "rights" with regard to them. I should like to read from the beginning of the section:
46. (1) The minister may declare the will of an Indian to be void in whole or in part if he is satisfied that-
Then I go on to paragraph (c):
(c)	the terms of the will would impose hardship on persons for whom the testator had a responsibility to provide,
(d)	the will purports to dispose of land in a reserve in a manner contrary to the interest of the band or contrary to this act,-
That seems to me to be absolutely wide open. Then finally:
(f) the terms of the will are against the public interest.
My comment, Mr. Chairman, is that provisions of that kind seem to me to be utterly repugnant to the declared intention, as I recall it, of the minister when he spoke to us first about this act. We would not treat children in that way.


Walter Edward Harris: I think my hon. friend has overlooked the fact that the minister has been constituted a court under the previous section. This section in a general way provides jurisdiction in the minister comparable to that of a surrogate court judge or a supreme court judge in any action which might be brought with respect to a will. That does not answer the one particular question about the interests of the band; because there you interject a thing which would not be present in a lawsuit between non-Indians. But my hon. friend must remember that band councils and bands feel strongly at times about the disposition of land on their reserve. There are many reserves where all the land is allotted, where the allotments have been held by families going through several generations, and the thoughts of land tenure which are common to most of us

here are held by those Indians. But there are other reserves where the thought of allotment itself is opposed today and where, if there is a limited allotment, and if an Indian in his will purports to dispose of that land in a manner quite contrary to the commonly-accepted policy of that band, it might be in the interests of harmony and good relationship, and perhaps not affect really the interests of the heirs, to have this power which would not be exercised unless there were all these circumstances I have described.
I agree that it is repugnant to most ideas that we ourselves entertain; but my hon. friend will have to accept my word for it that there is a great deal of opinion that the band council should have the sole word as to any lands on a reserve; and many band councils today insist that no will be looked at and approved of by the minister until they have looked at it to see whether it affects the land tenure on that reserve.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 47 to 65 inclusive agreed to.
On section 66-Expenditure of revenue moneys with consent of band.
Edmund Davie Fulton: What I have to say really
applies to all three subsections of section 66. Is there any safeguard to make sure that, if band funds are expended for these general benevolent purposes, Indians will not be deprived of benefits which they might hope eventually, at any rate, to receive under the general social security laws of the country? What I have in mind is this. Perhaps the answer will be self-evident, and perhaps I should therefore put it rather in the way of a suggestion for the future. Now that social security legislation is being made of universal application, but yet there are still means tests preserved in some of our social security legislation, as the Indians are brought along to a position of equality with the white man and, as I hope before long, are made the recipients of old age pensions, I would hope that the use of band funds for benevolent and charitable purposes and to look after the sick and the indigent and so on, that is provided for under this section will not in any way complicate the situation with respect to the means test; in other words, I hope it would not be counted as part of the income of an Indian for the purpose of disqualification for any social security benefits that he might otherwise be entitled to.


Walter Edward Harris: When this government raised the allowance for the aged from $8 to $25 last July 1, we found that in some cases band councils had been distributing money to their aged people on a monthly
Indian Act
basis; this distribution was perhaps generous enough that we found the application of a means test somewhat embarrassing to some of the bands. We have not been able to work out a perfect formula yet. But as to all that my hon. friend has said, it is the intention of the department to work that out in one form or another as our legislation improves.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 67 to 71 inclusive agreed to.
On section 72

Regulations.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I raised this matter before.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is this, although I qualify it by saying that this is a matter for national health and welfare. I understand that when an Indian leaves the reserve, for the first eighteen months after he leaves he is entitled to the medical care that he normally would have on the reserve. After that time it is presumed that he has made other contacts and other arrangements in the community in which he is living. But if he returns to the reserve, he immediately resumes the position he had when he left, and is entitled to all the medical care he had before he left.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have a case of an Indian who is off the reserve, and who has been off it for several years. The reason he went off the reserve is that he is an old man. He had nobody to keep him except himself. He was unable to work owing to illness. He is receiving $25 which is really all that is allowed; it is just really an old age pension. If he was not an Indian, he would be allowed $40, but being an Indian he gets $25. He has to live with his daughter in order to live at all, and he is not allowed medical attention. It comes pretty hard on him. Some provision should be made for these people who are off the reserves. There is no living on the reserve for them. They have to get off. I have the case of an elderly woman who is off the reserve and living with her relation because she cannot live on the reserve; yet she is not allowed medical attention. There is no place on the reserve where she can go and live.


Walter Edward Harris: We would have some difficulty in providing this medical service to persons who are scattered all over. Part of the advantage of being on the reserve is that the people are there and you can administer to them. If my hon. friend will give me the particular cases we shall look into them and see if something can be done.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I took the case up with the director of Indian services.

Indian Act


Walter Edward Harris: I realize that. Let me know about it again.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It went to the director of Indian health services.


Walter Edward Harris: I know. Let me have them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Nothing was done. I really believe that something should be done for cases like these because they could use the same doctor who attends to the Mud lake reserves. I will let the minister have the case again.


Walter Edward Harris: Thank you.


Mr.   Baler@: Section 72, paragraph (g), provides for medical treatment and health services to Indians. At this time I should like to commend the minister, his department, and also the special committee which has been acting for some time on behalf of our Indians.
In connection with the treatment and health services for our Indians, I should like to mention that in my home city of North Battleford, on the North Battleford airport, we have a splendid hospital that is entirely for Indian patients from the reserves of, I think, the Meadow Lake constituency and the constituency of The Battlefords. I should like to read into the record with respect to this hospital an item of Mrs. C. Wetton in the Star-Phoenix of April 20, 1951. Mrs. Wetton is special correspondent of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and also an authority on Indian history in our part of the province. This article carries the dateline North Battleford, August 22, 1876, and reads:
. . . and the third day of the Fort Carlton treatymaking :
"I have spoken much to you. Now I wish to hear the voices of your chiefs, or of those chosen to speak for you."
Governor Morris paused before the assembled tribesmen.
Poundmaker arose, to deliver an impassioned plea for aid for his people in the great task confronting them as they turned their footsteps to the white man's way of life, pleading at its close. "The children yet unborn, I wish you to treat them in like manner, as they advance in civilization like the white man. This is the voice of the people."
"I have heard the voice of the people," said the governor. "Those that come after us in the government, will think of your children, as we think of you."
How that pledge, so solemnly entered into in those far-away days at Fort Carlton is being fulfilled, is the story of the Indian hospital here.
It is a story of selfless endeavour; of men and women with wide experience, working in unison under the superintendency of Dr. P. W. Head for a better and fuller life for the descendants of those treaty makers; of the application of the latest in medical and surgical techniques, and nursing skills to the improvement of their health standards; and

of kindly guidance, in abundance, that has achieved more for the Indians here than anything else in their long story.
Indians are not demonstrative. But eagerly, now, they are seeking its benefits. No longer do they regard it as merely a government hospital for the Indians. "It is our hospital," they would have the world know.
At the last conference held here in Ottawa, called by the minister, there were two Indians down from my constituency, one chief Favel, representing the Queen Victoria protective association of Indians, and the other John Tootoosis, who is president of the Saskatchewan association of Indians. They advised me at the conclusion of their conference that they thought much good would come out of the conference and that it would be something for the betterment of the Indians of the future in the whole of Canada. After speaking to our two chiefs who were down I came to the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that Bill No. 79 is the Magna Carta of our Indians.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 73 to 78 inclusive agreed to.
On section	79-Regulations	respecting
band and council meetings.
A. Earl Catherwood: This whole bill is constituted to encourage the Indians to assume responsibility. If we expect them to claim the status that section 79 would give them, such as that of acting as presiding officers at such meetings, dealing with notices of meetings, the number of persons required at the meeting and so on, I think the representative of the department should sit in as an advisory counsel. I do feel that there is an opportunity here to give those Indians that responsibility, particularly at their own meetings of their own band. I should like the minister to consider that point.


Walter Edward Harris: I quite agree with all that the hon. member has said.


George Matheson Murray: May I refer to the work of the chairman of the special committee. The Lord Chief Justice of England, in his most exalted moments, was never more thoughtful than the chairman of that committee. The hon. member for Essex West gave all of us on this side of the house, or the other side of the house, an opportunity to express our opinions. Out of this discussion has grown the bill we have now before us, and I hope it will be an act which will be unanimously supported by the parliament of Canada. In the work that he has done, the hon. member for Essex West has rendered a tremendous service to Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 80 to 85 inclusive agreed to.

On section 86-Property exempt from taxation.
Mr. Gibson:: I am sure we all agree, Mr. Chairman, that this bill is not perfect, but I must say that I myself feel it is as nearly perfect as we can make it in our first attempt to amend the Indian Act.
Subsection 2 of section 86 is what I consider to be the most vital part of the Indian Act. I refer to the right to vote or the right not to vote. I must say that this is the only section in which I found myself in complete disagreement with the minister. He himself holds very strong views on this matter, and I respect him for it. On the other hand, I feel that there is only one way in which the Indians will be able to bring before parliament effectively their desires of any worthwhile amendments to this legislation in due course. That will be done by virtue of the faot that they will have a vote. I have been long enough in politics, Mr. Chairman, to realize that people without a vote do not really have a great deal of power when they speak to a member of parliament. On the other hand, I notice that since the province of British Columbia gave the vote to Indians in provincial elections there has been decidedly a great deal more interest taken in Indian affairs by the members of the provincial legislature, and indeed by the government of the province of British Columbia.
This may be the only time I shall speak in the debate, and in doing so I should like sincerely to congratulate the minister upon the extremely fine job he has made of this revision of the Indian Act. He was not a member of the special committee which sat in 1946, 1947, and 1948. But I must say, as was pointed out today by the hon. member for Essex West, that he certainly outstripped us all in a very short time with his intense application to the job. It is my view that the Indians of Canada are most fortunate in having a man of his capacity to look after their interests at this time, when the act is before parliament for amendment.
In my lifetime I have had a unique experience with Indians and with the officials of the Indian affairs branch. My experience extends over a period of more than thirty-five years. I have had many business dealings with the department, both before coming to Ottawa as a member of parliament and since that time. I can only say that in all that time, both as an outsider and as a member, I have always received the fullest co-operation from the officials. I feel they are doing a wonderful job in the administration of Indian affairs. I would express to them and to the minister on behalf of a very large number
Indian Act
of Indians in my riding our thanks for and appreciation of the work done on behalf of those Indians.
While I hesitate to do so, I feel I must move, as I did in committee-
That subsection (2) of section 86 be deleted.
It seems to me that in subsection- 1 we recognize the claim by the Indians to exemption from taxation. And yet, at least in my opinion, in subsection 2-perhaps the minister will not agree with this-we ask the Indian to barter his right to the exemption for the privilege of voting in a federal election. That is something which I feel is fundamentally and basically wrong.
We inquire why this is done, and the minister say-s he does not want to set up a special category of Indians. It -seems to me there are about one hundred Indians in reserves in Canada-and I give that figure only as a rough guess-who are earning taxable incomes, or incomes that would be exempt under our present legislation. I would be very pleased to have the minister correct me if I am wrong. In other words we are disfranchising -about 125,000 people, or at least making it difficult for them, and asking them to waive -some of their rights, in order *that the Department of National Revenue here in Ottawa may collect some revenue from about one hundred Indians.
Let me point out that there are a great many people in Canada who do not pay income taxes. I look at one of our greatest provinces and realize that in it there are probably 200,000 farmers who enjoy the right to vo-te, who enjoy the privilege of receiving $40 a month old age pension, -and a-11 the amenities and other privileges enjoyed by white people; perhaps I should name the province of Quebec where there are -perhaps another 200,000 farmers who pay the sum total of $50,000 in income tax, or about 25 cents each per year; yet we give them all these rights.
In order to go ahead and collect from one hundred Indians who might or might not have taxable incomes, the government says, "You must give away these fundamental rights"-rights which we have already acknowledged under subsection 1. We ask them to give away the rights they would enjoy under this legislation, in exchange for the privilege of voting.
I do not think this has been explained to the average Indian-because, after -all, not many of them have much knowledge of or familiarity with the workings of the Department of National Revenue. Most of them do not realize that the greater proportion of the money they receive from their reserves will be in the form of capital, and would not be taxable. I do not think we have ever explained to those people that money -coming

Indian Act
in from oil or timber is a capital receipt and, as such, would not in any case be subject to income tax.
At least half the Indians in Canada'will be afraid to sign this waiver in order to gain the right to vote because they will feel that they are losing something. As I said in committee, it seems to me we are straining at a gnat in an effort to collect income tax from perhaps one hundred Indians.
If there is any flagrant abuse of exemptions from taxation, by people opening up large manufacturing establishments on Indian reserves, then that might become something-in the nature of a racket. I could then understand the minister's concern about something that might develop through time. So far as I know, however, that has not yet developed. Even if it has, perhaps we could go ahead and say that we would put a ceiling of $5,000 on the tax exempt income of an Indian on a reserve. Perhaps that would be reasonable.
On the other hand, if a business bringing in half a million dollars a year is developed, I am sure the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance could not resist the temptation of moving in and securing some of that revenue. It seems to me that this subsection would disfranchise Indians, perhaps because of their lack of knowledge of the manner in which the Income Tax Act applies, and that all this would be done to catch only a few Indians. This in my view is fundamentally wrong.
I hope that if the amendment is turned down tonight, it may be considered again in two or three years, when we see how the arrangement works out.


Mr. Applewhaiie:: Mr. Chairman, it is with regret that, entering the debate for the first time, I find I must oppose the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I feel however that in this instance we should place our views on record in connection with the amendment proposed by him.
I am going to vote against his amendment, and for two reasons, the first of which is purely technical. At the last session of parliament when amendments were made to the Dominion Elections Act a certain principle was accepted. My understanding is that at that time we set up, as a matter of law, the condition under which Indians as such, under the Indian Act, were entitled to vote at dominion elections. Through our own inadvertence we accepted the principle and placed it in the elections act, without taking the steps necessary to make that principle operative.

In other words the Dominion Elections Act says that an Indian may vote if he signs a waiver, but no statute has said what effect the waiver to be signed would have. Therefore this is really only a complementary section to a principle already adopted when we passed the amendments to the Dominion Elections Act.
My second objection is more serious, and perhaps is not a popular one. I would ask the committee to believe that I am just as sincere in my objections as I know the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is in offering his amendment. The effect of the amendment to the Dominion Elections Act in this subsection is not to persuade the Indian to barter away anything; it is to persuade him to accept at one and the same time the rights, privileges, duties and responsibilities of a full-voting Canadian citizen.
I am sure the hon. member who has spoken did not intend to convey the impression, one which I gained from some of his remarks, that the subsection is here to enable the Department of National Revenue to catch up with some Indians. I do not think he meant to convey the impression that our purpose in putting such a section into the laws of this country was in order to collect the few dollars which we might collect.
He has suggested as a basis for his argument that we are taking away from the Indian certain rights which were his of exemption from certain forms of taxation. I suggest that those rights, if that is the proper expression, were given to the Indian as a quid pro quo, as compensation for the fact that we have refused him permission to take full part in the government of this country by expressing his opinion by means of the ballot. I could talk on this for a long time but I am going to conclude with one sentence which I hope will convey my feelings. In this country over a long period of years in recent history we have gradually come to lay more emphasis on rights, ignoring our duties. I suggest that if we are making a real effort to assist the Indian we shall help him to regard duty and rights as going hand in hand.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, since the discussion has become somewhat general on section 86 I should like to try to lay before the committee what I understand to be the views of the Indians with regard to whether or not in order to receive the vote they should have to give up what had previously been their exemption from taxation. Whether or not we agree with the stand of the Indians it does seem to me that there is a duty on the committee to try to appreciate their point of view.

We must remember that he is an Indian; he is not yet a fully qualified citizen. Therefore I think there is some merit in his contention that he is entitled to an exemption which might confer privileges over and above those enjoyed by white people for the time being. But there is a great deal of substance of right to the Indian's claim. I agree with most of the argument of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, although I am not certain that I agree with his legal argument, that revenues from oil and timber rights would necessarily be capital and therefore not definable as income to be taxed.


John Lambert Gibson: That is correct; that is the best part of the argument.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not sure as to the' merits of the hon. member's legal argument. Revenue from oil rights might be derived from lease rentals or simply from the receipts of outright purchase. It seems to me that the part of the hon. member's argument which was most impressive, if he will forgive me for putting it that way, was that part which dealt with the merits of the Indian's claim to be exempt from taxation.
The Indians take the position that they were the original inhabitants of this country, that the white people came and took over the lands and confined the Indians to certain areas and reserves. Those reserves were created by treaty in some cases and in other cases by processes of allotment. Generally speaking, the Indian's argument was that he should be compensated, not only for the loss of the possession of his lands but also for the loss of the general hunting and fishing rights over the lands from which he had derived his living. As compensation we gave him certain privileges which he enjoyed on the reserve. The Indian did not ask to be confined to the reserve; we confined him to the reserve. There is no doubt about that. We must not kid ourselves about this. The Indian did not ask to be put on the reserve; we put him there.
In partial satisfaction of a sense of justice we said to the Indian, "You will enjoy certain privileges on those reserves." The Indian's position throughout the years has been that those privileges which he enjoys in connection with his reserves and in his status as an Indian were conveyed to him in perpetuity in compensation for the losses which he suffered1 at the hands of the white men when they took over the country.
That being the case the Indian says, "Now you come to us and say that you wish to make us citizens by amending the Indian Act; that you wish to bring about a set of circumstances under which the Indian may become enfranchised"-I am using the word 80709-196
Indian Act
"enfranchised" in its proper sense, not merely as conveying the right to vote. "You have told us you want us to be enfranchised, you want us to enjoy equal status with the whites and you want us to accept equal obligations. You say you are doing this for the future of the Indians. You tell us that we should exercise the right and privilege of voting. The first thing you do when you ask us to accept these so-called privileges and to embrace these duties is to give up a privilege which has been ours ever since there were Indians, ever since there were bands and reserves established in the country."
The Indian does not think it is a strong argument when we say that we are trying to encourage him to became a citizen, to enjoy all our benefits and to assume full equality with us when as a first condition we tell him he must give up certain privileges which were given to him in perpetuity. He is unable to appreciate the logic of the argument just put forward by the hon. member for Skeena. I have to confess that were that argument applied to white people its logic would be inescapable, but I do suggest strongly that, when it is applied to Indians who are not yet our equal in status or in many respects our equals in appreciation of logic, it loses much of its force.
We have to deal with this matter to a certain extent from the Indian's point of view. If we want him to be fully equal to the white man, if we want him to assume willingly the duties which go with citizenship and equality, then we might make this one small concession, particularly, as has been pointed * out by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, when there would only be a small proportion of the Indians in receipt of taxable income on the reserves. I think it is proper to compare the situation in Canada with what exists in the United States. I have here a pamphlet issued by Theodore H. Hass, chief counsel of the United States Indian Service, entitled, "Should Indians Vote?" I should like to read one passage, which is as follows:
In. 1924 all Indians bom in the United States, who had not become naturalized by treaty or statute, were made citizens by an act of congress. About 125,000 Indians were affected by this law. As a consequence of attaining national citizenship, Indians automatically became citizens of the state where they reside. Yet on January 26, 1938, seven states still refused to let Indians go to the polls. As a result the solicitor of the department of the interior issued an opinion on the question of whether these state actions were constitutional. The opinion concluded:
"I am of the opinion that the fifteenth amendment clearly prohibits any denial of the right to vote to Indians under circumstances in which non-Indians would be permitted to vote. The laws of Idaho, New Mexico, and Washington which would exclude Indians not taxed from voting in effect exclude citizens of one race from voting on grounds

Indian Act
which are not applied to citizens of other races. For this reason I believe such laws are unconstitutional under the fifteenth amendment. Similarly, the laws of Idaho and South Dakota which would exclude Indians who maintain tribal relations from voting are believed to be unconstitutional as such laws exclude citizens from voting on grounds which apply to only one race."
Section 1 of the fifteenth amendment to the United States constitution, which was adopted on March 30, 1870, provides:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state or account of race, colour, or previous condition of servitude."
I know, Mr. Chairman, that we are not governed by the United States constitution or the United States bill of rights, but I do suggest that we are here endeavouring to do that thing which the United States apparently has already done, make the Indians full citizens and give them the right to vote. It is argued by the minister, and by such hon. members as the hon. member for Skeena, that the Indian who-and I will put it on their basis-as a previous condition of servitude enjoyed tax exemption cannot be allowed to vote unless he gives up that tax exemption. I would hope that we are not behind the United States in our ideals of citizenship. We have not the fifteenth amendment or anything like it, and it has been argued by ministers of the crown opposite on other occasions that the reason why we do not have these written bills of rights is because they are inherent in our constitution and in our way of life. Yet it seems to me that if we do what is contained in subsection 2 of section 86 we will in effect be denying the right of citizens of Canada to vote on account oi race, colour or previous condition of servitude. That is what we will be doing, the thing which the United States, in accordance with its traditions of freedom and democracy, has made it impossible to do under their fifteenth amendment.
Here in Canada of course I think there is another significant factor, and that is that at least two of the provinces have given the Indian the right to vote in provincial matters. British Columbia, and I believe Saskatchewan, both allow the Indians to vote. Perhaps I should speak only for my own province and say that British Columbia now allows Indians to vote. Whether they live on reserve or off reserve, whether or not they pay income tax, the province does not attach any conditions to the right to vote, and surely this house will not be less generous in its treatment of Indians than one of the provinces of Canada.
In the United States, again according to this pamphlet, apparently the situation was the reverse. The federal government first made them citizens and gave them the right to vote,
IMr. Fulton.]
and certain states denied them that right. The pamphlet dealing with this question contains a passage having to do with a case where one of the states denied Indians the right to vote. It points out that this case was brought before a court, and the court pointed out that the provision designed to prevent people who are unfit or unqualified from voting in an election was not intended to exclude Indians. Then the pamphlet goes on to say:
Three weeks later a three judge federal statutory court granted a permanent Injunction in the case of Trujillo vs. Garley restraining an election clerk from refusing to register a Pueblo Indian and others similarly situated because of a provision of the New Mexico state constitution excluding from the franchise "Indians not taxed."
New Mexico had attempted to restrain Indians from voting unless they gave up their exemption from taxation, and the United States court gave the opinion that this could not be done under the American constitution. Apparently in Canada, in spite of the fine things which are said about this act-and I think the spirit behind the act is a fine spirit -we are going to deny Indians the right to vote unless they give up exemption from taxation. As I pointed out, at least one province of Canada has given them the right to vote with no strings attached. Under the constitution of the United States, having previously enjoyed tax exemption, it has apparently been held that when given the right to vote they shall have that right without the necessity of giving up their tax exemption, and states have been restrained from preventing Indians from voting on the ground that they are tax exempt.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, we can see the force of the Indian argument which I attempted to outline earlier when it is reinforced by the practice and the principle laid down in the United States, which has an Indian problem at least similar to ours. In that country they have accepted the principle that Indians when made citizens shall be given the right to vote without giving up these privileges which we gave in perpetuity in compensation, in the Indians' eyes, for other and vastly greater privileges, the privilege of sole ownership of this country which we took away from them. I would hope that this parliament would be guided by principles and inspired by charity no less than that which appears to guide the citizens of the United States.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Before going any further, perhaps you would be good enough to examine the legal aspect of the amendment. Mr. Gibson moved:
That subsection 2 of section 86 be deleted.
The amendment is negative if we are considering subsection 2 separately, and I should

like to refer hon. members to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 341. I should like, however, to ask the opinion of hon. members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I understand the motion made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, it was simply that section 86 should be amended by deleting subsection 2. In considering this bill in committee we have not previously dealt with sections except as a whole. In other words, we have not yet broken down the sections and dealt with them subsection by subsection. I would certainly accept your ruling without question if the motion were that section 86 be deleted, because that would be a straight negative; but we are not asking that the whole section be deleted. We are suggesting that it be amended by deleting a subsection, which does not defeat the whole of the section. Then the other point arises that there is no chance of dealing with subsection 2 of the section unless Your Honour were to call section 86, subsection 1, and deal with that, and then section 86, subsection 2, so that we might deal with that by a negative vote. I submit that, since Your Honour has called section 86 as a whole, it is in order to move that the section be amended by deleting a part, and that the amendment does not fall within the principle laid down in Beauchesne.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, it happens that I want to move an amendment to subsection 1 in any event. I wonder if we could adopt the suggestion that has been made, call subsection 1, and deal with that. Then if the committee wishes to vote on subsection 2 as such, we can have the vote without the amendment. I do suggest that we avoid taking future sections by subsections. If any hon. member wishes to oppose a subsection, however, we can dispose of it by calling it and voting upon it. If you will call subsection 1, Mr. Chairman, I will move an amendment.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Very well; subsection 1 of
section 86.


Walter Edward Harris: There is some doubt as to whether subsection 1 does carry out the intention of the section to give the desired tax exemption, and we have prepared the following words to be added as an amendment at the end of subsection 1. The subsection will just continue, adding the following words after a comma: nor shall any such property be taken into account in determining the duty payable under the Dominion Succession Duty Act on or in respect of other property passing to an Indian.


Alphonse Fournier: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Indian Act
Subsection 1 as amended agreed to.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: We come now to subsection 2 and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could we dispose of it by a vote?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now that you have called subsection 2 by itself the amendment is not necessary; we vote either for or against the clause.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall subsection 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Subsection agreed to: Yeas, 45; nays, 21.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 87 to 109 inclusive agreed to.
On section 110-Sale of lands of enfranchised Indians.
John Alpheus Charlton: Subsection 2 of this section
reads:
When an order of enfranchisement issues or has been issued, the governor in council may, with the consent of the council of the band, by order declare that any lands within a reserve of which the enfranchised Indian had formerly been in lawful possession shall cease to be Indian reserve lands.
The council of the Six Nations Indians take very strong exception to this section, and always have. They say it will simply dot the Indian, reserve with white owners. Even though the minister has inserted the words "with the consent of the council of the band" they are still fearful that the reserve may become infiltrated with white owners, which in their view would be a very bad; situation. If in connection with land bordering the reserve the council of the band were in agreement I can see no reason why such lands could not be taken out of the reserve; but to pinpoint any reserve with white owners would be very objectionable, and I think would mean the ultimate end of that reserve. Surely the minister could do something in this section to prevent any such thing happening. If the whole band wanted to give up their reserve that would be all right; but to pinpoint it with whites would only mean that the reserve would, be broken up and the only home the Indians feel is theirs would be gradually taken away from them.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the section carry?


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not prepared to have this section carry.
Section stands.
Progress reported.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up Bill No. 289, respecting Laurier house; Bill No. 290, respecting Kingsmere park; Bill No. 79, respecting Indians; Bill No. 291, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947; Bill No. 195, to amend the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act; and Bill No. 284, to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act.


George Alexander Drew: Is the minister in a position to indicate when we shall be returning to the consideration of the defence estimates?


Alphonse Fournier: I would prefer to take this as a notice. I have not discussed the matter, and I am not in a position to give an answer just now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the budget
resolutions?


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 16, 1951